تَخْشَ
Appears 9 times in Quran
Derived Words (10)
Words derived from the stem "تَخْشَ".
- should feel humbled
- you should fear Him
- so fear them not
- fear
- thou shouldst fear Him
- whose dullness you fear
- and thou wast afraid
- so that thou mayest fear
- Do you fear them
- Therefore fear not
Occurrences in Quran
Found 9 verses containing "تَخْشَ".
وَمِنْ حَيْثُ خَرَجْتَ فَوَلِّ وَجْهَكَ شَطْرَ ٱلْمَسْجِدِ ٱلْحَرَامِ ۚ وَحَيْثُ مَا كُنتُمْ فَوَلُّوا۟ وُجُوهَكُمْ شَطْرَهُۥ لِئَلَّا يَكُونَ لِلنَّاسِ عَلَيْكُمْ حُجَّةٌ إِلَّا ٱلَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا۟ مِنْهُمْ فَلَا تَخْشَوْهُمْ وَٱخْشَوْنِى وَلِأُتِمَّ نِعْمَتِى عَلَيْكُمْ وَلَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ
2:145, 150.
5:4.
5:4; 12:7.
这话的意思是, 夺下麦加, 安拉对穆斯林的恩惠就可完全了, 因为这意味着对全阿拉伯半岛的征服,从而使数千人成为伊斯兰教信者。这一结果充分地证明了上述预言; 因为征服麦加之后很快就有千万阿拉伯人皈依伊斯兰教。为什么征服麦加之后接着就有阿拉伯人普遍参加伊斯兰教, 另一原因是, 尽管阿拉伯人不信奉启示经书, 可是伊布拉欣的预言是他们 (阿拉伯人) 所知道的, 这个预言是:麦加不会被任何假先知的追随者征服, 而任何企图征服它的人会遭到毁灭。就在最近, 他们从阿比西尼亚侵略者阿布拉哈及其强大军队的不可思议地毁灭, 就看到了这预言实现的显著证明。
穆斯林还有责任不得忽视征服麦加的这一最高目标。
“以免人们再有反对你们的议论。” 这句话的意思是指, 如果穆斯林不能征服麦加, 伊斯兰教的敌人会很合理地提出异议, 说穆圣没有完成伊布拉欣的祈祷 (2:130), 因此他不能自称为主许的先知。而且, 穆斯林受命在祈祷时把脸转向的禁寺在异教的麦加人控制下是充满着偶像的。假如这些偶像依然留在天房内的话, 穆斯林会受到崇拜偶像的指责。如果在原来只拜一个安拉的禁寺内清除了偶像的话, 这种反对意见就会得到有效的答复了。因此在以天房取代耶路撒冷的圣寺作为朝向的指令之后, 接着而来的自然是征服麦加的命令。
اس جگہ عام مسلمانوں کا ذکر ہے جو لڑائی کے دائرہ سے باہر تھے اور انہیں کہا گیا ہے کہ جو مسلمان جہاد میں پھنس گئے ہیں ان کا کام یہ ہے کہ جہاں سے بھی لڑائی کے لئے نکلیں فتحِ بیت اللہ کو اپنا مطمحِ نظر بنائیں اور وہ مسلمان جو دائرۂِ جنگ سے باہر ہیں ان کا کام یہ ہے کہ وہ خانہ کعبہ کی طرف منہ کرکے نماز پڑھا کریں اور ہمیشہ اپنی توجہ اور دعائیں اس بارہ میں جاری رکھیں کہ خداتعالیٰ بیت اللہ کو پھر ہمارے سپرد کر دے۔
یعنی اگر تم مکہ فتح نہیں کرو گے تو دشمن کا تم پر الزام رہے گا۔ لیکن اگر محمد رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم اپنی جنگوں کا رخ فتح بیت اللہ کی طرف رکھیں گے اور دوسرے مسلمان بھی نمازوں اور دعاؤں میں اس کا خیال رکھیں گے تو بیت اللہ فتح ہو جائے گا اور کفار اور یہود کا مسلمانوں پر کوئی الزام نہیں رہے گا۔
2:145, 150.
5:4.
5:4; 12:7.
The Muslims were also enjoined never to lose sight of the supreme objective of conquering Mecca.
The words, that people may have no argument against you, mean that if the Muslims failed to conquer Mecca, the objection would quite legitimately be raised by the enemies of Islam that the Holy Prophet had not fulfilled the prayer of Abraham (2:130), and, therefore, he could not claim to be the Promised Prophet. Moreover, the House to which the Muslims were commanded to turn their faces in Prayers was, while under the control of the heathen Meccans, full of idols. If the idols had remained in the Ka‘bah, the Muslims would have been accused of worshipping them. This objection could only be effectively answered if the Holy House, which had been originally dedicated to the worship of One God, had been cleared of idols. Hence the commandment to substitute the Ka‘bah for the Temple of Jerusalem as the Qiblah was naturally followed by the injunction about the conquest of Mecca.
The words mean that with the taking of Mecca God’s favour on the Muslims would become complete, for it would mean the subjugation of all Arabia and the entering of thousands of men into the fold of Islam. The result amply justified the above prophecy; for the conquest of Mecca was rapidly followed by the conversion to Islam of thousands of Arabs. Another reason why the conquest of Mecca was followed by a general influx of Arabs into Islam was that although the Arabs followed no revealed Book, yet the prophecy of Abraham that Mecca would not be conquered by the followers of any false Prophet, and any people attempting it would meet with destruction, was known to them. They had only recently seen a remarkable illustration of the fulfilment of that prophecy in the miraculous destruction of the Abyssinian invader, Abraha, and his powerful army.
2:145, 150.
5:4.
5:4; 12:7.
Commentary:
The singular person in خرجت (thou comest forth) is used to emphasize the fact that the conquest of Mecca was the personal responsibility of the Holy Prophet. If he could persuade others to help him, well and good; if not, he alone stood responsible before God—a mighty responsibility indeed which also strikes at the very root of the objection that Islam waited for a declaration of the defensive war till it was strong enough to hit back.
The plural person in حیث ماکنتم (wherever you be) is used so as to include the Muslims of all places. Next to the Holy Prophet, they are also commanded to keep the same object in view, i.e. the conquest of Mecca. This verse and the preceding one should afford no ground for inferring that Islam bids its followers to wage an aggressive war. For, as amply borne out by history, by the time these verses were revealed, war had already commenced with the Meccans and it was they that had forced it upon the unwilling Muslims.
The words, that people may have no argument against you, mean that if the Muslims failed to conquer Mecca, the objection would quite legitimately be raised by the enemies of Islam, that the Holy Prophet had not fulfilled the prayer of Abraham, contained in 2:130, and therefore, could not claim to be the Promised Prophet. Moreover, the House to which the Muslims were commanded to turn their faces during Prayers was, while under the control of the heathen Meccans, full of idols. If the idols had continued to remain in the Ka‘bah, the Muslims might have been accused of worshipping idols. This objection could be effectively answered, if the Holy House, which had been originally dedicated to the worship of One God, had been cleared of idols. Hence the commandment to substitute the Ka‘bah for the Temple at Jerusalem as Qiblah was naturally followed by the injunction about the conquest of Mecca.
It may be added here that the conquest of Mecca by the Muslims had also been predicted in the Quran in 28:86, and 17:81. The prophecy contained in Deut. 33:2 was also fulfilled when the Holy Prophet entered Mecca as a conqueror at the head of ten thousand Muslims.
The clause, that I may perfect My favour upon you, provides yet another argument in favour of the commandment relating to the conquest of Mecca. God means to say that, with the taking of Mecca, God’s favour on the Muslims would begin to be perfected; for it would mean the subjugation of all Arabia and the influx of thousands of men into the fold of Islam. The result amply justified the prophecy; for the conquest of Mecca was rapidly followed by the conversion to Islam of thousands of Arabs. Most of the Arabs, at heart victims of the beauty of Islam, had deferred their acceptance of the new faith till the issue of the struggle between Muslims and Meccans had been finally settled, and now they virtually came forward in "troops" to join it.
Another reason why the conquest of Mecca was followed by a general influx of Arabs into Islam was that although the Arabs followed no revealed Book, yet the prophecy of Abraham that Mecca would not be conquered by the followers of any false Prophet, and any people attempting it would meet with destruction was well known to them. They had only recently seen a remarkable illustration of the fulfilment of this prophecy in the miraculous destruction of the Abyssinian invader Abraha and his powerful army. Thus when Mecca fell into the hands of the Holy Prophet, they were at once convinced of his truth and thousands of them hastened to embrace Islam.
In this and the preceding verses (vv. 145 and 150), the command to turn to the Ka‘bah has been mentioned thrice. This is not a repetition; for the first command, i.e. in v. 145, pertains to the change of the Qiblah, while the second and the third, i.e. in vv. 150 and 151, refer to the conquest of Mecca. But here, too, there is truly speaking no repetition, for the command about the conquest of Mecca contained in each of these two verses serves a different purpose. In v. 150 Muslims are asked to turn their attention to the conquest of Mecca because God wished them to do so. So they were duty bound to carry it out undeterred by any fear of failure; whereas in the verse under comment, i.e. v. 151, the benefits which were to accrue to Muslims on their carrying out the command relating to the conquest of Mecca have been mentioned. Those benefits briefly are: (1) refutation of the objections and criticism of the enemy; (2) conversion to Islam of hundreds of thousands of Arabs, including the kith and kin of the Muslims; and (3) enlargement of the political power of Islam.
b
2:145, 150.
c
5:4.
d
5:4; 12:7.
100
这话的意思是, 夺下麦加, 安拉对穆斯林的恩惠就可完全了, 因为这意味着对全阿拉伯半岛的征服,从而使数千人成为伊斯兰教信者。这一结果充分地证明了上述预言; 因为征服麦加之后很快就有千万阿拉伯人皈依伊斯兰教。为什么征服麦加之后接着就有阿拉伯人普遍参加伊斯兰教, 另一原因是, 尽管阿拉伯人不信奉启示经书, 可是伊布拉欣的预言是他们 (阿拉伯人) 所知道的, 这个预言是:麦加不会被任何假先知的追随者征服, 而任何企图征服它的人会遭到毁灭。就在最近, 他们从阿比西尼亚侵略者阿布拉哈及其强大军队的不可思议地毁灭, 就看到了这预言实现的显著证明。
98
穆斯林还有责任不得忽视征服麦加的这一最高目标。
99
“以免人们再有反对你们的议论。” 这句话的意思是指, 如果穆斯林不能征服麦加, 伊斯兰教的敌人会很合理地提出异议, 说穆圣没有完成伊布拉欣的祈祷 (2:130), 因此他不能自称为主许的先知。而且, 穆斯林受命在祈祷时把脸转向的禁寺在异教的麦加人控制下是充满着偶像的。假如这些偶像依然留在天房内的话, 穆斯林会受到崇拜偶像的指责。如果在原来只拜一个安拉的禁寺内清除了偶像的话, 这种反对意见就会得到有效的答复了。因此在以天房取代耶路撒冷的圣寺作为朝向的指令之后, 接着而来的自然是征服麦加的命令。
2
اس جگہ عام مسلمانوں کا ذکر ہے جو لڑائی کے دائرہ سے باہر تھے اور انہیں کہا گیا ہے کہ جو مسلمان جہاد میں پھنس گئے ہیں ان کا کام یہ ہے کہ جہاں سے بھی لڑائی کے لئے نکلیں فتحِ بیت اللہ کو اپنا مطمحِ نظر بنائیں اور وہ مسلمان جو دائرۂِ جنگ سے باہر ہیں ان کا کام یہ ہے کہ وہ خانہ کعبہ کی طرف منہ کرکے نماز پڑھا کریں اور ہمیشہ اپنی توجہ اور دعائیں اس بارہ میں جاری رکھیں کہ خداتعالیٰ بیت اللہ کو پھر ہمارے سپرد کر دے۔
3
یعنی اگر تم مکہ فتح نہیں کرو گے تو دشمن کا تم پر الزام رہے گا۔ لیکن اگر محمد رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم اپنی جنگوں کا رخ فتح بیت اللہ کی طرف رکھیں گے اور دوسرے مسلمان بھی نمازوں اور دعاؤں میں اس کا خیال رکھیں گے تو بیت اللہ فتح ہو جائے گا اور کفار اور یہود کا مسلمانوں پر کوئی الزام نہیں رہے گا۔
a
2:145, 150.
b
5:4.
c
5:4; 12:7.
157
Commentary:
The singular person in خرجت (thou comest forth) is used to emphasize the fact that the conquest of Mecca was the personal responsibility of the Holy Prophet. If he could persuade others to help him, well and good; if not, he alone stood responsible before God—a mighty responsibility indeed which also strikes at the very root of the objection that Islam waited for a declaration of the defensive war till it was strong enough to hit back.
The plural person in حیث ماکنتم (wherever you be) is used so as to include the Muslims of all places. Next to the Holy Prophet, they are also commanded to keep the same object in view, i.e. the conquest of Mecca. This verse and the preceding one should afford no ground for inferring that Islam bids its followers to wage an aggressive war. For, as amply borne out by history, by the time these verses were revealed, war had already commenced with the Meccans and it was they that had forced it upon the unwilling Muslims.
The words, that people may have no argument against you, mean that if the Muslims failed to conquer Mecca, the objection would quite legitimately be raised by the enemies of Islam, that the Holy Prophet had not fulfilled the prayer of Abraham, contained in 2:130, and therefore, could not claim to be the Promised Prophet. Moreover, the House to which the Muslims were commanded to turn their faces during Prayers was, while under the control of the heathen Meccans, full of idols. If the idols had continued to remain in the Ka‘bah, the Muslims might have been accused of worshipping idols. This objection could be effectively answered, if the Holy House, which had been originally dedicated to the worship of One God, had been cleared of idols. Hence the commandment to substitute the Ka‘bah for the Temple at Jerusalem as Qiblah was naturally followed by the injunction about the conquest of Mecca.
It may be added here that the conquest of Mecca by the Muslims had also been predicted in the Quran in 28:86, and 17:81. The prophecy contained in Deut. 33:2 was also fulfilled when the Holy Prophet entered Mecca as a conqueror at the head of ten thousand Muslims.
The clause, that I may perfect My favour upon you, provides yet another argument in favour of the commandment relating to the conquest of Mecca. God means to say that, with the taking of Mecca, God’s favour on the Muslims would begin to be perfected; for it would mean the subjugation of all Arabia and the influx of thousands of men into the fold of Islam. The result amply justified the prophecy; for the conquest of Mecca was rapidly followed by the conversion to Islam of thousands of Arabs. Most of the Arabs, at heart victims of the beauty of Islam, had deferred their acceptance of the new faith till the issue of the struggle between Muslims and Meccans had been finally settled, and now they virtually came forward in "troops" to join it.
Another reason why the conquest of Mecca was followed by a general influx of Arabs into Islam was that although the Arabs followed no revealed Book, yet the prophecy of Abraham that Mecca would not be conquered by the followers of any false Prophet, and any people attempting it would meet with destruction was well known to them. They had only recently seen a remarkable illustration of the fulfilment of this prophecy in the miraculous destruction of the Abyssinian invader Abraha and his powerful army. Thus when Mecca fell into the hands of the Holy Prophet, they were at once convinced of his truth and thousands of them hastened to embrace Islam.
In this and the preceding verses (vv. 145 and 150), the command to turn to the Ka‘bah has been mentioned thrice. This is not a repetition; for the first command, i.e. in v. 145, pertains to the change of the Qiblah, while the second and the third, i.e. in vv. 150 and 151, refer to the conquest of Mecca. But here, too, there is truly speaking no repetition, for the command about the conquest of Mecca contained in each of these two verses serves a different purpose. In v. 150 Muslims are asked to turn their attention to the conquest of Mecca because God wished them to do so. So they were duty bound to carry it out undeterred by any fear of failure; whereas in the verse under comment, i.e. v. 151, the benefits which were to accrue to Muslims on their carrying out the command relating to the conquest of Mecca have been mentioned. Those benefits briefly are: (1) refutation of the objections and criticism of the enemy; (2) conversion to Islam of hundreds of thousands of Arabs, including the kith and kin of the Muslims; and (3) enlargement of the political power of Islam.
a
2:145, 150.
b
5:4.
c
5:4; 12:7.
174
The Muslims were also enjoined never to lose sight of the supreme objective of conquering Mecca.
175
The words, that people may have no argument against you, mean that if the Muslims failed to conquer Mecca, the objection would quite legitimately be raised by the enemies of Islam that the Holy Prophet had not fulfilled the prayer of Abraham (2:130), and, therefore, he could not claim to be the Promised Prophet. Moreover, the House to which the Muslims were commanded to turn their faces in Prayers was, while under the control of the heathen Meccans, full of idols. If the idols had remained in the Ka‘bah, the Muslims would have been accused of worshipping them. This objection could only be effectively answered if the Holy House, which had been originally dedicated to the worship of One God, had been cleared of idols. Hence the commandment to substitute the Ka‘bah for the Temple of Jerusalem as the Qiblah was naturally followed by the injunction about the conquest of Mecca.
176
The words mean that with the taking of Mecca God’s favour on the Muslims would become complete, for it would mean the subjugation of all Arabia and the entering of thousands of men into the fold of Islam. The result amply justified the above prophecy; for the conquest of Mecca was rapidly followed by the conversion to Islam of thousands of Arabs. Another reason why the conquest of Mecca was followed by a general influx of Arabs into Islam was that although the Arabs followed no revealed Book, yet the prophecy of Abraham that Mecca would not be conquered by the followers of any false Prophet, and any people attempting it would meet with destruction, was known to them. They had only recently seen a remarkable illustration of the fulfilment of that prophecy in the miraculous destruction of the Abyssinian invader, Abraha, and his powerful army.
حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ ٱلْمَيْتَةُ وَٱلدَّمُ وَلَحْمُ ٱلْخِنزِيرِ وَمَآ أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ ٱللَّهِ بِهِۦ وَٱلْمُنْخَنِقَةُ وَٱلْمَوْقُوذَةُ وَٱلْمُتَرَدِّيَةُ وَٱلنَّطِيحَةُ وَمَآ أَكَلَ ٱلسَّبُعُ إِلَّا مَا ذَكَّيْتُمْ وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَى ٱلنُّصُبِ وَأَن تَسْتَقْسِمُوا۟ بِٱلْأَزْلَٰمِ ۚ ذَٰلِكُمْ فِسْقٌ ۗ ٱلْيَوْمَ يَئِسَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا۟ مِن دِينِكُمْ فَلَا تَخْشَوْهُمْ وَٱخْشَوْنِ ۚ ٱلْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِى وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ ٱلْإِسْلَٰمَ دِينًا ۚ فَمَنِ ٱضْطُرَّ فِى مَخْمَصَةٍ غَيْرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ لِّإِثْمٍ ۙ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
2:174; 6:146.
5:91.
3:20, 86.
2:174; 6:146; 16:116.
اِكْمَالْ (Ikmal) (使…完美) 和 اِتْمَامْ (Itmam--------使…完整) 是动名词。第一个与质量有关而第二个与数量有关。第一个单词表明, «古兰经» 中体现的教义和律令以最完美的方式来影响人类身体、道德和精神的发展, 而第二个单词意指凡人类所需要的它无所不包。而且, 前一个单词与人类的身体方面即自我的外形有关, 而后一个关系到他们的精神即内在的自我。与安拉完美无缺的宗教和恩惠同时述及的是有关食物的法律。为的是指出食用合法的食物是形成良好品德的一种非常重要的基础。顺便说一下, 这是最后启示的一节经文。这节经文启示后仅82天, 穆圣就逝世了。
3:20, 86.
2:174; 6:146.
2:174; 6:146; 16:116.
Ikmal (perfecting) and Itmam (completing) are noun-infinitives, the first relating to quality and the second to quantity. The first word shows that doctrines and commandments affecting the physical, moral and spiritual development of man have been embodied in the Qur’an in their most perfect form; while the second signifies that nothing which was needed by man has been left out. Again, the former word pertains to commandments relating to the physical side of man or his external self, while the latter relates to his spiritual side or his inner self. The perfection and completion of God’s religion and favour have been mentioned side by side with the law relating to eatables in order to point out that the use of lawful and good food forms one of the very important bases of good morals which in turn provide a pedestal for spiritual progress. Incidentally, the verse was the last to be revealed, the Holy Prophet having died only 82 days after its revelation.
2:174; 6:146.
5:91.
3:20, 86.
2:174; 6:146; 16:116.
Important Words:
المیتة (an animal which dies of itself). Though generally speaking everything that is dead is میتة in its specific sense, the word signifies an animal that has died of itself without being properly slaughtered (Lane). See also 2:174.
المنخنقة (that which has been strangled) is derived from خنق. They say خنقه i.e. he squeezed his or its throat that he or it might die; he squeezed his or its throat so that he or it died; he strangled or throttled or choked him or it. اختنق or انخنقmeans, he or it became throttled or strangled or choked. شاة منخنقة means, a goat or sheep strangled or throttled (Lane).
الموقوذة (that which has been beaten to death) is derived from وقذه. They say وقذه i.e. he beat or struck him or it violently till he or it became relaxed and was at the point of death; he broke his or its skull, wounding the brain; he beat him or it till he or it died. شاة موقوذة means, a goat or sheep beaten to death either with a stick or staff or stones, etc. (Lane).
المتردیة (that which has been killed by a fall) is derived from ردی. They say ردی الرجل i.e. the man perished. رداه بحجر means, he threw stones at him and hit him. تردی means, he or it fell or tumbled down into a well or a pit. It also means, he or it fell down from a mountain, or a height and died. المتردیة means, that (a goat, etc.) which falls from a mountain or a height, or falls down a well, or a pit and dies (Lane).
النطیحة (that which has been gored to death) is derived from نطح. They say نطحه i.e. he (a ram, etc.) smote him or it with his horn. النطیحة means, a sheep or goat smitten with the horn and so killed (Lane).
ماذکیتم (that which you have properly slaughtered). ذکی (dhakka) is derived from ذکی (dhaka). They say ذکت النار i.e. the fire blazed or burned brightly. ذکت الارض means, the land was or became clean and pure. ذکی النار (dhakka) means, he made the fire blaze or burn brightly. ذکی العقل means, it (medicine, etc.) sharpened the intellect. ذکی الشاة means, he slaughtered the goat in the manner prescribed by the Law of Islam (Lane).
النصب (idols) is derived from نصب which means, he set up or he fixed. النصب according to some is singular, the plural of which is انصاب; and according to others, it is plural, of which the singular is نصاب. The word means, signs or marks set up to show the way; stones set up and worshipped to the exclusion of, or in preference to, God; anything that is so worshipped; stones which the pagan Arabs set to sacrifice or slay animals before them, the name of some deity being pronounced in the killing of such animals; idol or idols; but whereas idols were generally carved and had some form or shape, النصب were simple uncarved stones (Lane & Aqrab).
ازلام (divining arrows) is the plural of زلم and is derived from the verb زلم (zalama), meaning, he cut off the protruding part of a thing, such as the nose; he made his gift small in quantity as though he had cut off something from it. زلم السھم means, he cut or pared the arrow to make it proportionate and good-looking. زلم means, an arrow without a head and without feathers. ازلام (the plural of زلم) were those divining arrows by means of which pre-Islamic Arabs sought to know what was allotted to them. On some of these arrows the word "command" and on others "prohibition" were written, while others were left blank, and all these were kept together in a suitable vessel. When anyone wanted to do a certain thing or go on a journey, he would take out one of the arrows without looking at them and then act according to the instruction of "command" or "prohibition" as the case might be. If the blank arrow came out, the experiment was repeated, till an arrow bearing the word "command" or "prohibition" was taken out (Lane).
الیوم (this day) here really signifies "now". See 1:4.
مخمصة (hunger) is derived from مخمص. They say خمص البطن i.e. the belly was or became empty, i.e. hungry. خمصت القدم means, the foot rose from the ground or was hollow in the middle of the sole, so that it did not touch it. خمصه الجوع means, hunger rendered him lank in the belly. مخمصة therefore, means, emptiness of the belly; hunger (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
This verse shows that the Quran does not consider the prosperity and predominance of Islam to be dependent on territorial conquest and the extension of material power, but on its being a perfect and complete religion. it draws the attention of Muslims to the fact that now that all the teachings needed for the moral and spiritual regeneration of man have been embodied in the Quran, it is up to them to win the premier place in the comity of nations by acting upon them and holding fast to them.
The words ikmal (perfecting) and itmam (completing) which are noun-infinitives from اکملت and اتممت (have I perfected and completed) occurring in the clause, This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour upon you, are full of meaning and convey two different and distinct senses. The former, (i.e. perfection) relates to quality, and the latter, (i.e. completion) to quantity. The use of the word اکملت (I have perfected) with regard to the teaching of the Quran thus shows that doctrines and commandments affecting the physical, moral and spiritual development of man have been embodied in the Quran in their most perfect form; while the word اتممت (I have completed) shows that nothing which was needed by man has been left out. Again, the former, i.e. perfection, pertains to command-ments relating to the physical side of man or his external self, while the latter, i.e. completion, relates to his spiritual side or his inner self, viz. the completion of the spiritual blessings which follow the observance of the outward Law.
Thus, the verse hints that as the Divine Law has been perfected and completed in the Quran it shall not be superseded by any other Law. The Laws that preceded the Quran were meant for particular peoples and limited periods, being suited to their special requirements only. Similarly, the Prophets that preceded the Holy. Prophet of Islam were only sent to particular nations. This was quite in the fitness of things. The means of communication between different countries were then in a very undeveloped state and people living in one country knew little or nothing of the countries that lay far off from them. Moreover, nations of the earth were then in different stages of development, some being very backward and others only partially developed and the mind of man had not attained its full growth and development. Hence, the circumstances then obtaining required that separate Messengers be sent to separate nations who should give them such teachings as suited their particular needs and requirements. This state of things, however, was not to last forever, the Oneness of God presupposed oneness of mankind and it was quite natural that, when the God-given faculties of man became fully developed and the means of communication also improved so that intercourse between different nations became easier and more common, God should raise a Prophet for the whole of mankind and give him a perfect Law which should fulfil all the needs and meet all the problems of humanity
But the mere existence of a perfect Law cannot prevent the moral degeneration of humanity. So in spite of the presence of the Quran, it was necessary that heavenly Reformers should continue to appear in the world in times of degeneration, and, being inspired of God, should give new life to corrupt and degenerate humanity. In fact, the promise about the appearance of such Reformers is implied even in the words, This day have I completed My favour upon you, for if religion has been completed, it does not stand to reason that when mankind should consign God to oblivion and forget the object of their creation, God should make no provision for their regeneration. In that case, His favour upon them cannot be said to have been "completed". Thus, the very comple-tion of God’s favour upon Muslims requires that He should raise among them such Reformers as should breathe a new life into them, whenever their spiritual and moral degeneration demands it. Says the Holy Prophet, "God will raise among the Muslims at the head of each century a Reformer who would regenerate their religion for them" (Dawud, ch. on Malahim).
It may also be noted here that the perfection and completion of God’s religion and favour has been mentioned side by side with the law relating to eatables in order to point out that the use of lawful food forms one of the most important bases of good morals which in time provide a pedestal for spiritual progress.
a
2:174; 6:146.
b
5:91.
c
3:20, 86.
d
2:174; 6:146; 16:116.
370
اِكْمَالْ (Ikmal) (使…完美) 和 اِتْمَامْ (Itmam--------使…完整) 是动名词。第一个与质量有关而第二个与数量有关。第一个单词表明, «古兰经» 中体现的教义和律令以最完美的方式来影响人类身体、道德和精神的发展, 而第二个单词意指凡人类所需要的它无所不包。而且, 前一个单词与人类的身体方面即自我的外形有关, 而后一个关系到他们的精神即内在的自我。与安拉完美无缺的宗教和恩惠同时述及的是有关食物的法律。为的是指出食用合法的食物是形成良好品德的一种非常重要的基础。顺便说一下, 这是最后启示的一节经文。这节经文启示后仅82天, 穆圣就逝世了。
a
2:174; 6:146.
b
5:91.
c
3:20, 86.
d
2:174; 6:146; 16:116.
643
Important Words:
المیتة (an animal which dies of itself). Though generally speaking everything that is dead is میتة in its specific sense, the word signifies an animal that has died of itself without being properly slaughtered (Lane). See also 2:174.
المنخنقة (that which has been strangled) is derived from خنق. They say خنقه i.e. he squeezed his or its throat that he or it might die; he squeezed his or its throat so that he or it died; he strangled or throttled or choked him or it. اختنق or انخنقmeans, he or it became throttled or strangled or choked. شاة منخنقة means, a goat or sheep strangled or throttled (Lane).
الموقوذة (that which has been beaten to death) is derived from وقذه. They say وقذه i.e. he beat or struck him or it violently till he or it became relaxed and was at the point of death; he broke his or its skull, wounding the brain; he beat him or it till he or it died. شاة موقوذة means, a goat or sheep beaten to death either with a stick or staff or stones, etc. (Lane).
المتردیة (that which has been killed by a fall) is derived from ردی. They say ردی الرجل i.e. the man perished. رداه بحجر means, he threw stones at him and hit him. تردی means, he or it fell or tumbled down into a well or a pit. It also means, he or it fell down from a mountain, or a height and died. المتردیة means, that (a goat, etc.) which falls from a mountain or a height, or falls down a well, or a pit and dies (Lane).
النطیحة (that which has been gored to death) is derived from نطح. They say نطحه i.e. he (a ram, etc.) smote him or it with his horn. النطیحة means, a sheep or goat smitten with the horn and so killed (Lane).
ماذکیتم (that which you have properly slaughtered). ذکی (dhakka) is derived from ذکی (dhaka). They say ذکت النار i.e. the fire blazed or burned brightly. ذکت الارض means, the land was or became clean and pure. ذکی النار (dhakka) means, he made the fire blaze or burn brightly. ذکی العقل means, it (medicine, etc.) sharpened the intellect. ذکی الشاة means, he slaughtered the goat in the manner prescribed by the Law of Islam (Lane).
النصب (idols) is derived from نصب which means, he set up or he fixed. النصب according to some is singular, the plural of which is انصاب; and according to others, it is plural, of which the singular is نصاب. The word means, signs or marks set up to show the way; stones set up and worshipped to the exclusion of, or in preference to, God; anything that is so worshipped; stones which the pagan Arabs set to sacrifice or slay animals before them, the name of some deity being pronounced in the killing of such animals; idol or idols; but whereas idols were generally carved and had some form or shape, النصب were simple uncarved stones (Lane & Aqrab).
ازلام (divining arrows) is the plural of زلم and is derived from the verb زلم (zalama), meaning, he cut off the protruding part of a thing, such as the nose; he made his gift small in quantity as though he had cut off something from it. زلم السھم means, he cut or pared the arrow to make it proportionate and good-looking. زلم means, an arrow without a head and without feathers. ازلام (the plural of زلم) were those divining arrows by means of which pre-Islamic Arabs sought to know what was allotted to them. On some of these arrows the word "command" and on others "prohibition" were written, while others were left blank, and all these were kept together in a suitable vessel. When anyone wanted to do a certain thing or go on a journey, he would take out one of the arrows without looking at them and then act according to the instruction of "command" or "prohibition" as the case might be. If the blank arrow came out, the experiment was repeated, till an arrow bearing the word "command" or "prohibition" was taken out (Lane).
الیوم (this day) here really signifies "now". See 1:4.
مخمصة (hunger) is derived from مخمص. They say خمص البطن i.e. the belly was or became empty, i.e. hungry. خمصت القدم means, the foot rose from the ground or was hollow in the middle of the sole, so that it did not touch it. خمصه الجوع means, hunger rendered him lank in the belly. مخمصة therefore, means, emptiness of the belly; hunger (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
This verse shows that the Quran does not consider the prosperity and predominance of Islam to be dependent on territorial conquest and the extension of material power, but on its being a perfect and complete religion. it draws the attention of Muslims to the fact that now that all the teachings needed for the moral and spiritual regeneration of man have been embodied in the Quran, it is up to them to win the premier place in the comity of nations by acting upon them and holding fast to them.
The words ikmal (perfecting) and itmam (completing) which are noun-infinitives from اکملت and اتممت (have I perfected and completed) occurring in the clause, This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour upon you, are full of meaning and convey two different and distinct senses. The former, (i.e. perfection) relates to quality, and the latter, (i.e. completion) to quantity. The use of the word اکملت (I have perfected) with regard to the teaching of the Quran thus shows that doctrines and commandments affecting the physical, moral and spiritual development of man have been embodied in the Quran in their most perfect form; while the word اتممت (I have completed) shows that nothing which was needed by man has been left out. Again, the former, i.e. perfection, pertains to command-ments relating to the physical side of man or his external self, while the latter, i.e. completion, relates to his spiritual side or his inner self, viz. the completion of the spiritual blessings which follow the observance of the outward Law.
Thus, the verse hints that as the Divine Law has been perfected and completed in the Quran it shall not be superseded by any other Law. The Laws that preceded the Quran were meant for particular peoples and limited periods, being suited to their special requirements only. Similarly, the Prophets that preceded the Holy. Prophet of Islam were only sent to particular nations. This was quite in the fitness of things. The means of communication between different countries were then in a very undeveloped state and people living in one country knew little or nothing of the countries that lay far off from them. Moreover, nations of the earth were then in different stages of development, some being very backward and others only partially developed and the mind of man had not attained its full growth and development. Hence, the circumstances then obtaining required that separate Messengers be sent to separate nations who should give them such teachings as suited their particular needs and requirements. This state of things, however, was not to last forever, the Oneness of God presupposed oneness of mankind and it was quite natural that, when the God-given faculties of man became fully developed and the means of communication also improved so that intercourse between different nations became easier and more common, God should raise a Prophet for the whole of mankind and give him a perfect Law which should fulfil all the needs and meet all the problems of humanity
But the mere existence of a perfect Law cannot prevent the moral degeneration of humanity. So in spite of the presence of the Quran, it was necessary that heavenly Reformers should continue to appear in the world in times of degeneration, and, being inspired of God, should give new life to corrupt and degenerate humanity. In fact, the promise about the appearance of such Reformers is implied even in the words, This day have I completed My favour upon you, for if religion has been completed, it does not stand to reason that when mankind should consign God to oblivion and forget the object of their creation, God should make no provision for their regeneration. In that case, His favour upon them cannot be said to have been "completed". Thus, the very comple-tion of God’s favour upon Muslims requires that He should raise among them such Reformers as should breathe a new life into them, whenever their spiritual and moral degeneration demands it. Says the Holy Prophet, "God will raise among the Muslims at the head of each century a Reformer who would regenerate their religion for them" (Dawud, ch. on Malahim).
It may also be noted here that the perfection and completion of God’s religion and favour has been mentioned side by side with the law relating to eatables in order to point out that the use of lawful food forms one of the most important bases of good morals which in time provide a pedestal for spiritual progress.
a
5:91.b
3:20, 86.
c
2:174; 6:146.
d
2:174; 6:146; 16:116.
721
Ikmal (perfecting) and Itmam (completing) are noun-infinitives, the first relating to quality and the second to quantity. The first word shows that doctrines and commandments affecting the physical, moral and spiritual development of man have been embodied in the Qur’an in their most perfect form; while the second signifies that nothing which was needed by man has been left out. Again, the former word pertains to commandments relating to the physical side of man or his external self, while the latter relates to his spiritual side or his inner self. The perfection and completion of God’s religion and favour have been mentioned side by side with the law relating to eatables in order to point out that the use of lawful and good food forms one of the very important bases of good morals which in turn provide a pedestal for spiritual progress. Incidentally, the verse was the last to be revealed, the Holy Prophet having died only 82 days after its revelation.
إِنَّآ أَنزَلْنَا ٱلتَّوْرَىٰةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌ ۚ يَحْكُمُ بِهَا ٱلنَّبِيُّونَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُوا۟ لِلَّذِينَ هَادُوا۟ وَٱلرَّبَّٰنِيُّونَ وَٱلْأَحْبَارُ بِمَا ٱسْتُحْفِظُوا۟ مِن كِتَٰبِ ٱللَّهِ وَكَانُوا۟ عَلَيْهِ شُهَدَآءَ ۚ فَلَا تَخْشَوُا۟ ٱلنَّاسَ وَٱخْشَوْنِ وَلَا تَشْتَرُوا۟ بِـَٔايَٰتِى ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۚ وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ فَأُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْكَٰفِرُونَ
6:92; 7:155.
2:42.
5:46, 48.
See {432A}.
Ahbar is the plural of Hibr which means, a learned man of the Jews; or any learned man; a good or righteous man (Lane). In this verse the Qur’an brings home to the Jews the charge mentioned in the previous verse, viz. when even the Prophets of God who followed Moses were required to judge according to the Torah, who else can refuse to refer his disputes to it?
6:92; 7:155.
2:42.
5:46, 48.
Important Words:
ربانیون (godly people). See 3:80.
احبار (learned men) is the plural of حبر. They say حبره i.e. he made it beautiful; or he made him happy; or he treated him with honour. حبر (hibr) or حبر (habr) means, a learned man of the Jews; or any learned man; a good or righteous man (Lane & Aqrab).
استحفظوا (were required to preserve) is in the passive voice being formed from حفظ. They say حفظه i.e. he kept it or preserved it or guarded it or protected it; or he prevented it from perishing or becoming lost. استحفظه (in the active voice) means, he asked him to keep or guard or preserve it from perishing or becoming lost; or he asked him to be careful of, or attentive to, it; or he placed it with him to preserve or guard or take care of it; or he entrusted him with it or gave it to him in trust (Lane).
Commentary:
In this verse the Quran brings home to the Jews the charge mentioned in the previous verse. When even the Prophets of God who followed Moses were required to judge according to the Torah, who are they to refuse to refer their disputes to it?
The words, Therefore fear not men but fear Me, and barter not My Signs for a paltry price, mean that the referring by the Jews of their disputes to the Holy Prophet meant that they no longer looked upon the Torah as the revealed Word of God, and also that they had complete faith in the honesty, truthfulness and justice of the Holy Prophet. If such was the case, and there were also clear prophecies in their Scriptures bearing witness to his truth, then their refusal to believe in him showed that they feared men more than they feared God. Moreover, the rejection of the Holy Prophet meant not only the rejection of those prophecies but of Moses himself, who brought the Book which contains those prophecies.
It is also clear from this verse that it is not necessary for every Prophet to bring a new Law and not to be the follower of another Prophet or Book. The Prophets that appeared among the Jews after Moses, including Jesus, brought no new Law but followed Moses and acted upon the Law that was revealed to him. Says the verse, By it did the Prophets, who were obedient to Us, judge for the Jews. The Prophets who judged the Jews by the Torah were obviously subject to the Law of the Torah and had no Law of their own.
b
6:92; 7:155.
c
2:42.
d
5:46, 48.
a
6:92; 7:155.
b
2:42.
c
5:46, 48.
676
Important Words:
ربانیون (godly people). See 3:80.
احبار (learned men) is the plural of حبر. They say حبره i.e. he made it beautiful; or he made him happy; or he treated him with honour. حبر (hibr) or حبر (habr) means, a learned man of the Jews; or any learned man; a good or righteous man (Lane & Aqrab).
استحفظوا (were required to preserve) is in the passive voice being formed from حفظ. They say حفظه i.e. he kept it or preserved it or guarded it or protected it; or he prevented it from perishing or becoming lost. استحفظه (in the active voice) means, he asked him to keep or guard or preserve it from perishing or becoming lost; or he asked him to be careful of, or attentive to, it; or he placed it with him to preserve or guard or take care of it; or he entrusted him with it or gave it to him in trust (Lane).
Commentary:
In this verse the Quran brings home to the Jews the charge mentioned in the previous verse. When even the Prophets of God who followed Moses were required to judge according to the Torah, who are they to refuse to refer their disputes to it?
The words, Therefore fear not men but fear Me, and barter not My Signs for a paltry price, mean that the referring by the Jews of their disputes to the Holy Prophet meant that they no longer looked upon the Torah as the revealed Word of God, and also that they had complete faith in the honesty, truthfulness and justice of the Holy Prophet. If such was the case, and there were also clear prophecies in their Scriptures bearing witness to his truth, then their refusal to believe in him showed that they feared men more than they feared God. Moreover, the rejection of the Holy Prophet meant not only the rejection of those prophecies but of Moses himself, who brought the Book which contains those prophecies.
It is also clear from this verse that it is not necessary for every Prophet to bring a new Law and not to be the follower of another Prophet or Book. The Prophets that appeared among the Jews after Moses, including Jesus, brought no new Law but followed Moses and acted upon the Law that was revealed to him. Says the verse, By it did the Prophets, who were obedient to Us, judge for the Jews. The Prophets who judged the Jews by the Torah were obviously subject to the Law of the Torah and had no Law of their own.
a
6:92; 7:155.
b
2:42.
c
5:46, 48.
749
See {432A}.
750
Ahbar is the plural of Hibr which means, a learned man of the Jews; or any learned man; a good or righteous man (Lane). In this verse the Qur’an brings home to the Jews the charge mentioned in the previous verse, viz. when even the Prophets of God who followed Moses were required to judge according to the Torah, who else can refuse to refer his disputes to it?
أَلَا تُقَٰتِلُونَ قَوْمًا نَّكَثُوٓا۟ أَيْمَٰنَهُمْ وَهَمُّوا۟ بِإِخْرَاجِ ٱلرَّسُولِ وَهُم بَدَءُوكُمْ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ ۚ أَتَخْشَوْنَهُمْ ۚ فَٱللَّهُ أَحَقُّ أَن تَخْشَوْهُ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ
The tribes in or about Medina who, when the Holy Prophet went on an expedition to Tabuk, plotted to bring about his downfall by inciting the various tribes of Arabia to stand up against him.
These words also do not refer to the pagan Meccans but to those infidels, whether open or secret, who lived in and around Medina. They provided ample proof of the fact that, far from being the transgressor, Islam was transgressed against rather than being the aggressor.
Commentary:
The words, who plotted to turn out the Messenger, do not refer to the Meccans, but to those who, when the Holy Prophet went on an expedition to the Syrian border, plotted to bring about his downfall by making the different tribes of Arabia stand up as one man against him on his return (see notes on 9:3,4, above). The Meccans did not merely plot to turn out the Holy Prophet, but actually turned him out (see 47:14). Moreover, by the time these verses were revealed, the Meccans had embraced Islam and all hostilities between Muslims and Meccans had ceased.
The words, they were the first to commence hostilities against you, also refer not to the Meccans but to those infidels, whether open or secret, who lived in and about Medina. The words provide conclusive proof of the fact that, far from being the transgressor, Islam was transgressed against. It was the infidels who first began hostilities against it. They acted most treacherously and resorted to all sorts of foul means to annihilate it. It was only such men that Muslims had been commanded to fight. Christian critics of Islam will do well to compare the wars of Islam with the wars of their great Lawgiver, Moses, against a people who had never taken up arms against him and had done nothing to offend him. Yet these people were ruthlessly butchered and even their women and children were not spared (Deut. 20:16, 17). As compared with this, the Holy
Prophet took up arms only against those who first started hostilities, and even then he directed that their women and children and their religious devotees, as well as their churches, should be spared (Muslim, Tahawi & Dawud). Those, who regard the wars of Moses as holy, have certainly no reason to criticize the wars of the Holy Prophet of Islam.
1176
Commentary:
The words, who plotted to turn out the Messenger, do not refer to the Meccans, but to those who, when the Holy Prophet went on an expedition to the Syrian border, plotted to bring about his downfall by making the different tribes of Arabia stand up as one man against him on his return (see notes on 9:3,4, above). The Meccans did not merely plot to turn out the Holy Prophet, but actually turned him out (see 47:14). Moreover, by the time these verses were revealed, the Meccans had embraced Islam and all hostilities between Muslims and Meccans had ceased.
The words, they were the first to commence hostilities against you, also refer not to the Meccans but to those infidels, whether open or secret, who lived in and about Medina. The words provide conclusive proof of the fact that, far from being the transgressor, Islam was transgressed against. It was the infidels who first began hostilities against it. They acted most treacherously and resorted to all sorts of foul means to annihilate it. It was only such men that Muslims had been commanded to fight. Christian critics of Islam will do well to compare the wars of Islam with the wars of their great Lawgiver, Moses, against a people who had never taken up arms against him and had done nothing to offend him. Yet these people were ruthlessly butchered and even their women and children were not spared (Deut. 20:16, 17). As compared with this, the Holy
Prophet took up arms only against those who first started hostilities, and even then he directed that their women and children and their religious devotees, as well as their churches, should be spared (Muslim, Tahawi & Dawud). Those, who regard the wars of Moses as holy, have certainly no reason to criticize the wars of the Holy Prophet of Islam.
1165
The tribes in or about Medina who, when the Holy Prophet went on an expedition to Tabuk, plotted to bring about his downfall by inciting the various tribes of Arabia to stand up against him.
1166
These words also do not refer to the pagan Meccans but to those infidels, whether open or secret, who lived in and around Medina. They provided ample proof of the fact that, far from being the transgressor, Islam was transgressed against rather than being the aggressor.
قُلْ إِن كَانَ ءَابَآؤُكُمْ وَأَبْنَآؤُكُمْ وَإِخْوَٰنُكُمْ وَأَزْوَٰجُكُمْ وَعَشِيرَتُكُمْ وَأَمْوَٰلٌ ٱقْتَرَفْتُمُوهَا وَتِجَٰرَةٌ تَخْشَوْنَ كَسَادَهَا وَمَسَٰكِنُ تَرْضَوْنَهَآ أَحَبَّ إِلَيْكُم مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِۦ وَجِهَادٍ فِى سَبِيلِهِۦ فَتَرَبَّصُوا۟ حَتَّىٰ يَأْتِىَ ٱللَّهُ بِأَمْرِهِۦ ۗ وَٱللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِى ٱلْقَوْمَ ٱلْفَٰسِقِينَ
Ties of relationship and the love of kith and kin and other worldly considerations, of wealth, trade and property should not be allowed to stand in the way when a dearer relationship and a nobler cause and more vital considerations demand their sacrifice.
Commentary:
The idolaters were closely connected with Muslims by ties of blood and relationship. Muslims are plainly told in this verse that these relationships and other worldly considerations of wealth, trade and property should not be allowed to stand in the way when a dearer relationship and a nobler cause and more vital considerations demanded their sacrifice. Love of kith and kin and worldly possessions should not be permitted to hinder the Faithful from serving the cause of Islam. The judgement of God mentioned at the end of the verse came after the death of the Holy Prophet when "the disobedient people," i.e. those who had joined the fold of Islam for worldly considerations, revolted and were punished by God through Abu Bakr, the First Khalifah.
1185
Commentary:
The idolaters were closely connected with Muslims by ties of blood and relationship. Muslims are plainly told in this verse that these relationships and other worldly considerations of wealth, trade and property should not be allowed to stand in the way when a dearer relationship and a nobler cause and more vital considerations demanded their sacrifice. Love of kith and kin and worldly possessions should not be permitted to hinder the Faithful from serving the cause of Islam. The judgement of God mentioned at the end of the verse came after the death of the Holy Prophet when "the disobedient people," i.e. those who had joined the fold of Islam for worldly considerations, revolted and were punished by God through Abu Bakr, the First Khalifah.
1172
Ties of relationship and the love of kith and kin and other worldly considerations, of wealth, trade and property should not be allowed to stand in the way when a dearer relationship and a nobler cause and more vital considerations demand their sacrifice.
وَلَقَدْ أَوْحَيْنَآ إِلَىٰ مُوسَىٰٓ أَنْ أَسْرِ بِعِبَادِى فَٱضْرِبْ لَهُمْ طَرِيقًا فِى ٱلْبَحْرِ يَبَسًا لَّا تَخَٰفُ دَرَكًا وَلَا تَخْشَىٰ
26:53.
26:64.
Against all unimpeachable historical data, most extraordinary theories have been propounded about the Israelites, viz. (a) they never lived in Egypt; because no reference to them is to be found in the old Egyptian historical records. (b) In the fifth year of the reign of Pharaoh Meneptah (or Merenptah) when Moses is said to have taken the Israelites out of Egypt, some Israelite tribes were actually living in Canaan, therefore the theory that Moses had taken the Israelites out of Egypt to Canaan during his reign and that they settled there some fifty years later is all wrong.
The propounders of these strange theories seem to forget that the Israelites were foreigners in Egypt and were a subject race and had lived the miserable life of serfs and slaves under their cruel rulers. How could such people be considered worthy of any notice being taken of them by historians? When even in this 20th century historians cannot find it easy to prepare a well- connected and harmonious narrative about a people from
26:53.
26:64.
Important Words:
لا تخشی (nor wilt thou have fear) is formed from خشیwhich means, he feared or dreaded or feared with reverence, veneration, respect, or awe. We have in the Quran وھم من خشیته مشفقون i.e. they fear their Lord, holding Him in reverence (21:29). خشی منه means, he feared or dreaded what might happen to him from him or it. خشیة is the dread, fear or awe resulting from the knowledge which one possesses about a thing or person. The Quranic expression انما یخشی اللّٰه من عبادہ العلماء(35:29) means, only those of His servants who possess knowledge fear Allah (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat). The reference to the fear mentioned in the words لا تخشی is to the dangers of the sea and other hardships that lay ahead of the Israelites.
Commentary:
The incident mentioned in this verse relates to the time when, under God’s command, Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt into Canaan. The Israelites left secretly by night, and when Pharaoh learnt of their flight, he pursued them with his hosts and was drowned in the Red Sea.
In order to appreciate fully the nature and significance of this incident which indeed constituted a great divine sign, it is necessary to read the verse under comment along with other relevant verses such as vv. 2:51, 26:62-64 & 44:25. The Quran says:
And remember the time when We divided the sea for you and saved you and drowned Pharaoh’s people while you looked on (2:51).
And when the two hosts came in sight of each other the companions of Moses said, 'We are surely overtaken.'…Then We revealed to Moses, saying, 'Strike the sea with thy rod.' Whereupon it parted and every part was like a huge sandhill (26:62-64). When the Israelites were passing they had the sea on one side and the small lake son the other, which conformably to the natural laws of perspective appeared raised above the level of the land.
And leave the sea at a time when it is motionless. Surely, they are a host which is doomed to be drowned (44:25). i.e. pass through the sea quickly at a time when the tide has receded.
The Bible also refers to this incident in the following verses:
And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand and on their left. And the Egyptians pursued and went in after them to the midst of the sea…And the Lord said unto Moses, 'Stretch out thine hand over the sea'…And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea and the sea returned to its strength…And the waters returned and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them (Exod. 14:21-28).
The following facts emerge from the above account of this incident as given in the Quran and the Bible;
(a) that Moses was commanded by God to take away the Israelites out of Egypt by night;
(b) that Pharaoh pursued the Israelites with his mighty hosts;
(c) that when the Israelites reached the arm of the Red Sea which lay across their route, they were greatly dismayed because Pharaoh was close behind with his hosts;
(d) that when on seeing Pharaoh’s hosts the Israelites exclaimed in fright that they were overtaken, God commanded Moses to strike the water of the sea with his rod;
(e) that when Moses struck the sea with his rod as the Quran says or stretched out his hand over the sea as the Bible says, it was the time of the ebb-tide and the sea was receding, leaving a dry bed;
(f) that Moses was commanded by God to cross quickly the dry bed to the opposite bank, which he did;
(g) that when the hosts of Pharaoh reached the sea, it was the time of high tide and that in their zeal to overtake the Israelites they took no notice of it and at once jumped into the sea behind them; and
(h) that, as it appears, being heavily equipped with big chariots and other heavy armaments the progress of the army of Pharaoh was greatly retarded so that while they were yet in the midst of the sea, the high tide returned and they were all drowned.
Historians differ as to the exact place from where Moses crossed the Red Sea from Egypt into Canaan. Some are of the view that on his way from the territory of Goshen, which is also called the valley of Al-Tamthilat or Wadi Tumilat and where the capital of the Pharaohs was situated (Enc. Bib. vol. 4, col. 4012, under "Rameses"), Moses passed by the Gulf of Timsah (Enc. Bib., cols. 1438 & 1439). Others think that he went much further to the north and going round Zoan crossed over to Canaan near the Mediterranean Sea (Enc. Bib., col. 1438). But what is most probable is the fact that from Tal Abi Sulaiman which was the capital of the Pharaohs in Moses’ time, the Israelites at first went to north-east to the Gulf of Timsah but finding that a net of gulfs barred their way, they turned south and crossed the Red Sea near the town of Suez where it is hardly more than 2/3 mile wide, and started for Qadas (Enc. Bib., col. 1437).
The following passage from Peake’s "Commentary on the Bible" (p. 64) may also be read with interest:
The Israelites fled with him (Moses) across the Goshen marshes into the Sinaitic Peninsula. The crossing of the "Red Sea" (yam suph, "sea" or "lake of reeds") was probably the crossing of the southern end of a lake a few miles N.W. of what is now called the Red Sea. A wind laid bare a wide stretch of shore, and when an Egyptian force pursued the fugitives, their chariot wheels stuck fast in the wet soil, and the water returned upon them when the wind shifted. Writers differ as to the route taken by the Israelites. Some think that they moved southward to the mountainous range of (the modern) Sinai, and then along the eastern arm of the Red Sea, now known as the Gulf of ‘Akabah, to its northernmost point at Ezion Geber. Others think that the evidence points to the route still taken by Mecca pilgrims, nearly due E. to Ezion Geber, and that thence they moved N.W. to the region of Kadesh (Barnea), to Mt. Sinai or southward along the E. side of the Gulf of ‘Akabah to Mt. Horeb. The traditions differ and certainty is impossible.
There are people who against all canons of history take particular delight in propounding most extraordinary theories that the Israelites never lived in Egypt. Some such theories are:
(a) No reference to the Israelites is to be found in the old Egyptian historical records.
(b) In the fifth year of the reign of Pharaoh Merneptah (or Mereneptah) when Moses is said to have taken the Israelites out of Egypt, some Israelite tribes were actually living in Canaan, therefore the theory of Moses having taken the Israelites out of Egypt to Canaan during his reign and their having settled in that country some fifty years later is all wrong.
(c) Though some trace is found of a few tribes having crossed over from Asia into Egypt but there is no proof that these were the Israelite tribes.
The propounders of these strange theories seem to ignore the patent fact that the Israelites were foreigners in Egypt and were a subject race and lived the miserable life of slaves under their cruel rulers. How could such people be considered worthy of any notice being taken of them by historians? Apart from this the fact may also be taken into consideration that when it is not quite possible for historians even in this 20th century to prepare a well-connected and harmonious narrative about a people from the remnants of its ruined civilization, it was much more difficult for historians in the past to reconstruct a consistent record from the fragmentary accounts of a people who lived in the hoary past and who were treated like beasts of burden by their rulers. This is why no reference to the Israelites is to be found in the old historical records of Egypt.
Secondly, the doubtful theory that certain Israelite tribes were found to be living in Canaan in the 5th year of the reign of Pharaoh Merneptah cannot disprove the fact that other Israelite tribes had remained behind in Egypt. Is it not possible that some of these tribes might have left Egypt for Canaan sometime before all of them were taken out of it by Moses. It is very strange that on the one hand these very writers say that Moses is an Egyptian name and that some of the companions of Moses also had Egyptian names, and on the other that the Israelites never went to Egypt. Moreover, the Bible gives a detailed and well-connected story of the Israelites having lived in Egypt. There was no compelling reason for the writers of the Bible to have done so, especially when the Israelites had lived there only as slaves and worse than beasts of burden. No people would feel any urge or pride in forging and falsely inventing such a miserable record of shame and sorrow of themselves. Last but not least, the Biblical details with regard to the customs, culture and mode of life of the Pharaohs of that time is another proof of the fact that the Israelites had lived under them. The Bible had no interest in the Pharaoh dynasty of Egypt apart from their being rulers of the Israelites. Besides, as stated by old Greek historians, the Egyptians themselves admitted that the Israelites had lived in Egypt for a long time and later on had left this country. The present Egypt, however, should not be confused with a territory which in ancient times was also known as Egypt but which formed a part of northern Syria or northern Arabia.
The date of the Exodus has also been much contested and there seems to be considerable difficulty in determining its exact date from the Biblical records alone. Neither the name of the reigning Pharaoh nor the place where he held his court is mentioned; the account given is not contemporary, but has been condensed and annotated by later editors, and fused by them into a general narrative; and the Biblical chronology of the period, though containing trustworthy material, is known to be largely artificial. Apart from the Biblical records any historical information on the subject is meagre. Various theories, however, are held about the Exodus. Some of these are as follows:
1. The view that the Israelites left Egypt with the Hyksos (1580 B.C.) at the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty, or shortly afterwards, and lived a nomadic life of about 200 years in the desert previous to entering Canaan. But evidently this view seems to do violence to genuine Hebrew tradition.
2. The theory which dates the Exodus in the XVIIIth Dynasty, but about 1445 B.C. just after the long despotic reign of Thutmose III and during that of his son Amenhotep II (1447-1420 B.C.). This theory too lacks the support of trustworthy historical material and Hebrew tradition.
3. The hypothesis which connects the Exodus with the religion’s revolution attempted by Amenhotep IV, otherwise known as Akhenaten (1383-1366 B.C.) This view would place the Exodus about 1350 or 1345 B.C. This seems to be more plausible than the first two views.
4. But the theory, largely prevalent which receives much support from historical data, archaeological research and Hebrew tradition is that the Exodus occurred in the Nineteenth Dynasty (1328-1202 B.C.), in the reign of Merneptah II or Mereneptah II (1234-1214) and still seems the most probable. It appears to have taken place about 1230 B.C. According to this view the Pharaoh of the oppression would be Rameses II and his successor Merneptah II, the Pharaoh of the Exodus (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, pp. 119, 955 & 956).
Incidentally, it may be stated here that the striking of the water of the sea with his rod by Moses had no cause and effect connection with the actual parting of the sea. It was merely a sign or a Divine intimation that it was the time of the ebb tide and that the Israelites should hasten to cross. God had so arranged that when Moses reached the sea the tide was about to go back, so that as soon as he struck the sea with his rod in obedience to Divine command, it began to recede and a dry path was made for the Israelites. The striking of the water with his rod by Moses and the recession of the sea coincided. This constituted a miracle because God alone knew when the sea would recede and He had commanded Moses to strike its waters at the time of its recession.
a
26:53.
b
26:64.
c
26:53.
d
26:64.
2293A
Important Words:
لا تخشی (nor wilt thou have fear) is formed from خشیwhich means, he feared or dreaded or feared with reverence, veneration, respect, or awe. We have in the Quran وھم من خشیته مشفقون i.e. they fear their Lord, holding Him in reverence (21:29). خشی منه means, he feared or dreaded what might happen to him from him or it. خشیة is the dread, fear or awe resulting from the knowledge which one possesses about a thing or person. The Quranic expression انما یخشی اللّٰه من عبادہ العلماء(35:29) means, only those of His servants who possess knowledge fear Allah (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat). The reference to the fear mentioned in the words لا تخشی is to the dangers of the sea and other hardships that lay ahead of the Israelites.
Commentary:
The incident mentioned in this verse relates to the time when, under God’s command, Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt into Canaan. The Israelites left secretly by night, and when Pharaoh learnt of their flight, he pursued them with his hosts and was drowned in the Red Sea.
In order to appreciate fully the nature and significance of this incident which indeed constituted a great divine sign, it is necessary to read the verse under comment along with other relevant verses such as vv. 2:51, 26:62-64 & 44:25. The Quran says:
And remember the time when We divided the sea for you and saved you and drowned Pharaoh’s people while you looked on (2:51).
And when the two hosts came in sight of each other the companions of Moses said, 'We are surely overtaken.'…Then We revealed to Moses, saying, 'Strike the sea with thy rod.' Whereupon it parted and every part was like a huge sandhill (26:62-64). When the Israelites were passing they had the sea on one side and the small lake son the other, which conformably to the natural laws of perspective appeared raised above the level of the land.
And leave the sea at a time when it is motionless. Surely, they are a host which is doomed to be drowned (44:25). i.e. pass through the sea quickly at a time when the tide has receded.
The Bible also refers to this incident in the following verses:
And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand and on their left. And the Egyptians pursued and went in after them to the midst of the sea…And the Lord said unto Moses, 'Stretch out thine hand over the sea'…And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea and the sea returned to its strength…And the waters returned and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them (Exod. 14:21-28).
The following facts emerge from the above account of this incident as given in the Quran and the Bible;
(a) that Moses was commanded by God to take away the Israelites out of Egypt by night;
(b) that Pharaoh pursued the Israelites with his mighty hosts;
(c) that when the Israelites reached the arm of the Red Sea which lay across their route, they were greatly dismayed because Pharaoh was close behind with his hosts;
(d) that when on seeing Pharaoh’s hosts the Israelites exclaimed in fright that they were overtaken, God commanded Moses to strike the water of the sea with his rod;
(e) that when Moses struck the sea with his rod as the Quran says or stretched out his hand over the sea as the Bible says, it was the time of the ebb-tide and the sea was receding, leaving a dry bed;
(f) that Moses was commanded by God to cross quickly the dry bed to the opposite bank, which he did;
(g) that when the hosts of Pharaoh reached the sea, it was the time of high tide and that in their zeal to overtake the Israelites they took no notice of it and at once jumped into the sea behind them; and
(h) that, as it appears, being heavily equipped with big chariots and other heavy armaments the progress of the army of Pharaoh was greatly retarded so that while they were yet in the midst of the sea, the high tide returned and they were all drowned.
Historians differ as to the exact place from where Moses crossed the Red Sea from Egypt into Canaan. Some are of the view that on his way from the territory of Goshen, which is also called the valley of Al-Tamthilat or Wadi Tumilat and where the capital of the Pharaohs was situated (Enc. Bib. vol. 4, col. 4012, under "Rameses"), Moses passed by the Gulf of Timsah (Enc. Bib., cols. 1438 & 1439). Others think that he went much further to the north and going round Zoan crossed over to Canaan near the Mediterranean Sea (Enc. Bib., col. 1438). But what is most probable is the fact that from Tal Abi Sulaiman which was the capital of the Pharaohs in Moses’ time, the Israelites at first went to north-east to the Gulf of Timsah but finding that a net of gulfs barred their way, they turned south and crossed the Red Sea near the town of Suez where it is hardly more than 2/3 mile wide, and started for Qadas (Enc. Bib., col. 1437).
The following passage from Peake’s "Commentary on the Bible" (p. 64) may also be read with interest:
The Israelites fled with him (Moses) across the Goshen marshes into the Sinaitic Peninsula. The crossing of the "Red Sea" (yam suph, "sea" or "lake of reeds") was probably the crossing of the southern end of a lake a few miles N.W. of what is now called the Red Sea. A wind laid bare a wide stretch of shore, and when an Egyptian force pursued the fugitives, their chariot wheels stuck fast in the wet soil, and the water returned upon them when the wind shifted. Writers differ as to the route taken by the Israelites. Some think that they moved southward to the mountainous range of (the modern) Sinai, and then along the eastern arm of the Red Sea, now known as the Gulf of ‘Akabah, to its northernmost point at Ezion Geber. Others think that the evidence points to the route still taken by Mecca pilgrims, nearly due E. to Ezion Geber, and that thence they moved N.W. to the region of Kadesh (Barnea), to Mt. Sinai or southward along the E. side of the Gulf of ‘Akabah to Mt. Horeb. The traditions differ and certainty is impossible.
There are people who against all canons of history take particular delight in propounding most extraordinary theories that the Israelites never lived in Egypt. Some such theories are:
(a) No reference to the Israelites is to be found in the old Egyptian historical records.
(b) In the fifth year of the reign of Pharaoh Merneptah (or Mereneptah) when Moses is said to have taken the Israelites out of Egypt, some Israelite tribes were actually living in Canaan, therefore the theory of Moses having taken the Israelites out of Egypt to Canaan during his reign and their having settled in that country some fifty years later is all wrong.
(c) Though some trace is found of a few tribes having crossed over from Asia into Egypt but there is no proof that these were the Israelite tribes.
The propounders of these strange theories seem to ignore the patent fact that the Israelites were foreigners in Egypt and were a subject race and lived the miserable life of slaves under their cruel rulers. How could such people be considered worthy of any notice being taken of them by historians? Apart from this the fact may also be taken into consideration that when it is not quite possible for historians even in this 20th century to prepare a well-connected and harmonious narrative about a people from the remnants of its ruined civilization, it was much more difficult for historians in the past to reconstruct a consistent record from the fragmentary accounts of a people who lived in the hoary past and who were treated like beasts of burden by their rulers. This is why no reference to the Israelites is to be found in the old historical records of Egypt.
Secondly, the doubtful theory that certain Israelite tribes were found to be living in Canaan in the 5th year of the reign of Pharaoh Merneptah cannot disprove the fact that other Israelite tribes had remained behind in Egypt. Is it not possible that some of these tribes might have left Egypt for Canaan sometime before all of them were taken out of it by Moses. It is very strange that on the one hand these very writers say that Moses is an Egyptian name and that some of the companions of Moses also had Egyptian names, and on the other that the Israelites never went to Egypt. Moreover, the Bible gives a detailed and well-connected story of the Israelites having lived in Egypt. There was no compelling reason for the writers of the Bible to have done so, especially when the Israelites had lived there only as slaves and worse than beasts of burden. No people would feel any urge or pride in forging and falsely inventing such a miserable record of shame and sorrow of themselves. Last but not least, the Biblical details with regard to the customs, culture and mode of life of the Pharaohs of that time is another proof of the fact that the Israelites had lived under them. The Bible had no interest in the Pharaoh dynasty of Egypt apart from their being rulers of the Israelites. Besides, as stated by old Greek historians, the Egyptians themselves admitted that the Israelites had lived in Egypt for a long time and later on had left this country. The present Egypt, however, should not be confused with a territory which in ancient times was also known as Egypt but which formed a part of northern Syria or northern Arabia.
The date of the Exodus has also been much contested and there seems to be considerable difficulty in determining its exact date from the Biblical records alone. Neither the name of the reigning Pharaoh nor the place where he held his court is mentioned; the account given is not contemporary, but has been condensed and annotated by later editors, and fused by them into a general narrative; and the Biblical chronology of the period, though containing trustworthy material, is known to be largely artificial. Apart from the Biblical records any historical information on the subject is meagre. Various theories, however, are held about the Exodus. Some of these are as follows:
1. The view that the Israelites left Egypt with the Hyksos (1580 B.C.) at the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty, or shortly afterwards, and lived a nomadic life of about 200 years in the desert previous to entering Canaan. But evidently this view seems to do violence to genuine Hebrew tradition.
2. The theory which dates the Exodus in the XVIIIth Dynasty, but about 1445 B.C. just after the long despotic reign of Thutmose III and during that of his son Amenhotep II (1447-1420 B.C.). This theory too lacks the support of trustworthy historical material and Hebrew tradition.
3. The hypothesis which connects the Exodus with the religion’s revolution attempted by Amenhotep IV, otherwise known as Akhenaten (1383-1366 B.C.) This view would place the Exodus about 1350 or 1345 B.C. This seems to be more plausible than the first two views.
4. But the theory, largely prevalent which receives much support from historical data, archaeological research and Hebrew tradition is that the Exodus occurred in the Nineteenth Dynasty (1328-1202 B.C.), in the reign of Merneptah II or Mereneptah II (1234-1214) and still seems the most probable. It appears to have taken place about 1230 B.C. According to this view the Pharaoh of the oppression would be Rameses II and his successor Merneptah II, the Pharaoh of the Exodus (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, pp. 119, 955 & 956).
Incidentally, it may be stated here that the striking of the water of the sea with his rod by Moses had no cause and effect connection with the actual parting of the sea. It was merely a sign or a Divine intimation that it was the time of the ebb tide and that the Israelites should hasten to cross. God had so arranged that when Moses reached the sea the tide was about to go back, so that as soon as he struck the sea with his rod in obedience to Divine command, it began to recede and a dry path was made for the Israelites. The striking of the water with his rod by Moses and the recession of the sea coincided. This constituted a miracle because God alone knew when the sea would recede and He had commanded Moses to strike its waters at the time of its recession.
c
26:53.
d
26:64.
1838
Against all unimpeachable historical data, most extraordinary theories have been propounded about the Israelites, viz. (a) they never lived in Egypt; because no reference to them is to be found in the old Egyptian historical records. (b) In the fifth year of the reign of Pharaoh Meneptah (or Merenptah) when Moses is said to have taken the Israelites out of Egypt, some Israelite tribes were actually living in Canaan, therefore the theory that Moses had taken the Israelites out of Egypt to Canaan during his reign and that they settled there some fifty years later is all wrong.
The propounders of these strange theories seem to forget that the Israelites were foreigners in Egypt and were a subject race and had lived the miserable life of serfs and slaves under their cruel rulers. How could such people be considered worthy of any notice being taken of them by historians? When even in this 20th century historians cannot find it easy to prepare a well- connected and harmonious narrative about a people from
وَإِذْ تَقُولُ لِلَّذِىٓ أَنْعَمَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَأَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْسِكْ عَلَيْكَ زَوْجَكَ وَٱتَّقِ ٱللَّهَ وَتُخْفِى فِى نَفْسِكَ مَا ٱللَّهُ مُبْدِيهِ وَتَخْشَى ٱلنَّاسَ وَٱللَّهُ أَحَقُّ أَن تَخْشَىٰهُ ۖ فَلَمَّا قَضَىٰ زَيْدٌ مِّنْهَا وَطَرًا زَوَّجْنَٰكَهَا لِكَىْ لَا يَكُونَ عَلَى ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَرَجٌ فِىٓ أَزْوَٰجِ أَدْعِيَآئِهِمْ إِذَا قَضَوْا۟ مِنْهُنَّ وَطَرًا ۚ وَكَانَ أَمْرُ ٱللَّهِ مَفْعُولًا
بعض مفسرین کہتے ہیں کہ رسول کریم صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم ’’نعوذ باللہ‘‘دل میں حضرت زینبؓ کو نکاح میں لانے کا ارادہ رکھتے تھے مگر اس کو چھپاتے تھے تاکہ لوگ ٹھوکر نہ کھائیں مگر اصل میں اس کے یہ معنے ہیں کہ آنحضرت صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کو معلوم ہو چکا تھا کہ حضرت زیدؓ حضرت زینبؓ کو طلاق دینا چاہتے ہیں اور آپ اس معاملہ کو پوشیدہ رکھ کر حضرت زیدؓ کو نصیحت کرتے تھے تاکہ لوگوں کو یہ ٹھوکر نہ لگے کہ ایک شریف خاندان کی لڑکی ایک آزاد غلام سے بیاہ کر رسول کریم صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے اچھا کام نہیں کیا بلکہ فتنہ کا دروازہ کھول دیا ہے۔ بعض علماء کہتے ہیں کہ ز ینبؓ کا نکاح آنحضرت صلی اللہ
ہم پہلے لکھ چکے ہیں کہ تاریخ سے یہ ثابت ہے کہ رسول کریم صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے حضرت زینبؓ سے نکاح کیا تھا مگر اس آیت میں زَوَّجْنٰکَھَا کے الفاظ ہیں۔ جس کے معنے یہ ہیں کہ ’’ہم نے تجھ سے اس کا بیاہ کر دیا‘‘ سو یاد رکھنا چاہیے کہ عربی زبان میں جو فعل کسی کے دخل دینے سے ہو وہ اسی کی طرف منسوب ہوتا ہے۔ چونکہ الہاماً اللہ تعالیٰ کی طرف سے نکاح کا حکم ہوا تھا اس لئے یہ فعل اللہ تعالیٰ کی طرف منسوب کیا گیا۔
Zaid bin Harith, a young freed man of the Holy Prophet whom he had adopted as his son before adoption was declared unlawful in Islam.
Had divorced her; Watar means, need; want; an object of want (Lane).
Zainab was the daughter of the Holy Prophet’s aunt, hence a full- blooded Arab lady, intensely proud of her ancestry and exalted social status. Islam had envisaged and given to the world a civilization and culture in which there were no class divisions, no hereditary nobility, no vested interests. All men were free and equal in the sight of God. The Holy Prophet wanted to start with his own family to carry into actual effect this noble ideal of Islam. He wished to marry Zainab to Zaid, who in spite of having been freed by the Prophet, unfortunately still carried the stigma of slavery in the minds of some people. It was exactly this stigma of slavery, this invidious distinction between 'free' and 'slave' which the Holy Prophet sought to remove by Zainab’s marriage with Zaid. In deference to the Holy Prophet’s wish Zainab agreed to the proposal. The purpose of the Holy Prophet was achieved. The marriage levelled to the ground class distinctions and divisions. It was a practical demonstration of Islam
Important Words:
وطرا (want) has no verb. It means, a want, a need, an object of want or need; or that which one proposes to accomplish or of which one is desirous. They say قضی منه وطرہ i.e. he accomplished or obtained his want from him (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
As the verse deals with an incident of very great historical importance, it demands and deserves a somewhat detailed explanation. Zaid bin Harith, to whom the words "on whom Allah had bestowed favours and on whom thou also had bestowed favours" refer, belonged to the tribe of Kalb. In his childhood he was kidnapped and sold as a slave in Mecca where he was bought by Khadijah’s brother and given over to her. On her marriage with the Holy Prophet Khadijah presented Zaid to him who at once emancipated him. Zaid was so much attached to the Prophet that when later his father and uncle begged of the Holy Prophet to let him go with them as the grief of his separation from home had almost killed his mother, the Prophet readily gave his permission. But Zaid himself flatly refused to part company with the Holy Prophet, exclaiming that he was dearer to him than his father and mother. The Prophet was so deeply touched by Zaid’s fidelity and love for him that he at once declared him (Zaid) to be his son and henceforward Zaid came to be known as the Prophet’s son. Zaid remained throughout his life a most beloved and faithful disciple of the Holy Prophet and sealed his fidelity to Islam and the Prophet with his blood on the battlefield of Mu’tah.
Zainab was the daughter of the Holy Prophet’s aunt, hence a full-blooded Arab, intensely proud of her ancestry and exalted social status. Islam had envisaged and given to the world a civilization and culture in which there were to be no class divisions, no hereditary nobility, no vested interests. All men were to be free and equal in the sight of God. The Holy Prophet wanted to start with his own family the carrying into actual effect of this noble ideal of Islam. He wished to marry Zainab to Zaid, who in spite of having been liberated by the Prophet and called his son, unfortunately still carried the stigma of slavery in the minds of some people. It was exactly this stigma of slavery, this invidious distinction between 'free' and 'slave' which the Holy Prophet sought to remove by Zainab’s marriage to Zaid. In deference to the Holy Prophet’s wish Zainab agreed to the proposal. The purpose of the Holy Prophet was achieved. The marriage levelled to the ground all class distinctions and divisions. It was a practical demonstration of Islam’s noble ideal. The marriage, however, ended in failure, not so much due to a difference in the social status of Zainab and Zaid as to the incompatibility of their dispositions and temperaments and also due to a feeling of inferiority from which Zaid suffered. The failure of the marriage naturally grieved the Holy Prophet. But it also served a very useful purpose. In pursuance of Divine command, as mentioned in the latter part of the verse under comment, the Prophet himself married Zainab, thus cutting at the very root of another obnoxious and deep-seated Arab custom, viz. that it was a sacrilege to marry the wife of one’s adopted son. The custom of adoption was abolished and with it went also this foolish notion. Thus Zainab’s marriage with Zaid served one very noble object and its failure another highly useful purpose.
The words "fear Allah" signify that Zaid wanted to divorce Zainab, and as divorce according to Islam is very hateful in the sight of God, the Holy Prophet exhorted him not to do so.
The clause, "And then…thou shouldst fear Him," may apply to both Zaid and the Holy Prophet. Applying to Zaid it would mean that Zaid did not like that the cause of his separation from Zainab should come to light, perhaps because as the words "fear Allah," indicate the fault lay more with him than with Zainab. As, however, applying to the Holy Prophet, the words would signify that as the marriage between Zaid and Zainab was arranged at his instance and wish, he naturally did not like its breaking. The clause also shows that the Prophet feared that the break-down of the marriage which was arranged by him and which had been entered into in deference to his special wish, but which resulted in an ostensible failure of the experiment in Islamic brotherhood, would cause some mental confusion and uneasiness among people whose faith was weak. This was the anxiety that lay heavy on the Prophet’s heart. The words, "thou didst fear men," seem to point to this fear of his. But, as mentioned above, God had His own purpose in the failure of this marriage. He wanted to show that there was nothing in this failure to be afraid of. On the contrary, it was a blessing in disguise and was intended to serve a great purpose and therefore the Prophet’s fear was unfounded.
Christian and other hostile Critics of Islam pretend to find in the Holy Prophet’s marriage to Zainab a basis for mean attacks on him. It is stated that the Prophet, having by chance seen Zainab, became enamoured of her beauty and Zaid, having come to know of his desire to marry her, sought divorce from her. The fact that the Holy Prophet’s most inveterate enemies, before whose eyes the whole affair had actually taken place, dared not attribute the base motives ascribed to him by these critics after so many centuries, completely knocks the bottom from under this base and totally unfounded charge. Zainab was the Prophet’s own cousin and being so closely related to him he must have seen her many times, for "Purdah" had not as yet been enjoined. Besides, it was in deference to his own persistently expressed wish that Zainab had reluctantly agreed to marry Zaid. It is on record that she and her brother had desired before her marriage with Zaid that she should be taken in marriage by the Holy Prophet himself. What wasit that prevented the Holy Prophet from marrying her when she was a virgin and when she herself ardently desired to get married to him? The whole story evidently seems to be a figment of the "fertile" imagination of the Holy Prophet’s hostile critics and it is an insult to human intellect to give the least credence to it. But while there are some Christian critics like Muir and Margoliouth who find fault with the Holy Prophet for having married Zainab, there are others better informed and more honest like the good and noble Rev. Bosworth Smith who found nothing in this marriage to cavil at. The Rev, gentleman says:
"It should be remembered, however, that most of Mohammed’s marriages may be explained, at least, as much by his pity for the forlorn condition of the persons concerned, as by other motives. They were almost all of them widows who were not remarkable either for their beauty or their wealth, but quite the reverse. May not this fact, and his undoubted faithfulness to Khadijah till her dying day, and till he himself was fifty years of age, give us additional ground to hope that calumny or misconception has been at work in the story of Zainab" - ("Mohammed and Mohammedanism").
1
بعض مفسرین کہتے ہیں کہ رسول کریم صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم ’’نعوذ باللہ‘‘دل میں حضرت زینبؓ کو نکاح میں لانے کا ارادہ رکھتے تھے مگر اس کو چھپاتے تھے تاکہ لوگ ٹھوکر نہ کھائیں مگر اصل میں اس کے یہ معنے ہیں کہ آنحضرت صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کو معلوم ہو چکا تھا کہ حضرت زیدؓ حضرت زینبؓ کو طلاق دینا چاہتے ہیں اور آپ اس معاملہ کو پوشیدہ رکھ کر حضرت زیدؓ کو نصیحت کرتے تھے تاکہ لوگوں کو یہ ٹھوکر نہ لگے کہ ایک شریف خاندان کی لڑکی ایک آزاد غلام سے بیاہ کر رسول کریم صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے اچھا کام نہیں کیا بلکہ فتنہ کا دروازہ کھول دیا ہے۔ بعض علماء کہتے ہیں کہ ز ینبؓ کا نکاح آنحضرت صلی اللہ
2
ہم پہلے لکھ چکے ہیں کہ تاریخ سے یہ ثابت ہے کہ رسول کریم صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے حضرت زینبؓ سے نکاح کیا تھا مگر اس آیت میں زَوَّجْنٰکَھَا کے الفاظ ہیں۔ جس کے معنے یہ ہیں کہ ’’ہم نے تجھ سے اس کا بیاہ کر دیا‘‘ سو یاد رکھنا چاہیے کہ عربی زبان میں جو فعل کسی کے دخل دینے سے ہو وہ اسی کی طرف منسوب ہوتا ہے۔ چونکہ الہاماً اللہ تعالیٰ کی طرف سے نکاح کا حکم ہوا تھا اس لئے یہ فعل اللہ تعالیٰ کی طرف منسوب کیا گیا۔
3104
Important Words:
وطرا (want) has no verb. It means, a want, a need, an object of want or need; or that which one proposes to accomplish or of which one is desirous. They say قضی منه وطرہ i.e. he accomplished or obtained his want from him (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
As the verse deals with an incident of very great historical importance, it demands and deserves a somewhat detailed explanation. Zaid bin Harith, to whom the words "on whom Allah had bestowed favours and on whom thou also had bestowed favours" refer, belonged to the tribe of Kalb. In his childhood he was kidnapped and sold as a slave in Mecca where he was bought by Khadijah’s brother and given over to her. On her marriage with the Holy Prophet Khadijah presented Zaid to him who at once emancipated him. Zaid was so much attached to the Prophet that when later his father and uncle begged of the Holy Prophet to let him go with them as the grief of his separation from home had almost killed his mother, the Prophet readily gave his permission. But Zaid himself flatly refused to part company with the Holy Prophet, exclaiming that he was dearer to him than his father and mother. The Prophet was so deeply touched by Zaid’s fidelity and love for him that he at once declared him (Zaid) to be his son and henceforward Zaid came to be known as the Prophet’s son. Zaid remained throughout his life a most beloved and faithful disciple of the Holy Prophet and sealed his fidelity to Islam and the Prophet with his blood on the battlefield of Mu’tah.
Zainab was the daughter of the Holy Prophet’s aunt, hence a full-blooded Arab, intensely proud of her ancestry and exalted social status. Islam had envisaged and given to the world a civilization and culture in which there were to be no class divisions, no hereditary nobility, no vested interests. All men were to be free and equal in the sight of God. The Holy Prophet wanted to start with his own family the carrying into actual effect of this noble ideal of Islam. He wished to marry Zainab to Zaid, who in spite of having been liberated by the Prophet and called his son, unfortunately still carried the stigma of slavery in the minds of some people. It was exactly this stigma of slavery, this invidious distinction between 'free' and 'slave' which the Holy Prophet sought to remove by Zainab’s marriage to Zaid. In deference to the Holy Prophet’s wish Zainab agreed to the proposal. The purpose of the Holy Prophet was achieved. The marriage levelled to the ground all class distinctions and divisions. It was a practical demonstration of Islam’s noble ideal. The marriage, however, ended in failure, not so much due to a difference in the social status of Zainab and Zaid as to the incompatibility of their dispositions and temperaments and also due to a feeling of inferiority from which Zaid suffered. The failure of the marriage naturally grieved the Holy Prophet. But it also served a very useful purpose. In pursuance of Divine command, as mentioned in the latter part of the verse under comment, the Prophet himself married Zainab, thus cutting at the very root of another obnoxious and deep-seated Arab custom, viz. that it was a sacrilege to marry the wife of one’s adopted son. The custom of adoption was abolished and with it went also this foolish notion. Thus Zainab’s marriage with Zaid served one very noble object and its failure another highly useful purpose.
The words "fear Allah" signify that Zaid wanted to divorce Zainab, and as divorce according to Islam is very hateful in the sight of God, the Holy Prophet exhorted him not to do so.
The clause, "And then…thou shouldst fear Him," may apply to both Zaid and the Holy Prophet. Applying to Zaid it would mean that Zaid did not like that the cause of his separation from Zainab should come to light, perhaps because as the words "fear Allah," indicate the fault lay more with him than with Zainab. As, however, applying to the Holy Prophet, the words would signify that as the marriage between Zaid and Zainab was arranged at his instance and wish, he naturally did not like its breaking. The clause also shows that the Prophet feared that the break-down of the marriage which was arranged by him and which had been entered into in deference to his special wish, but which resulted in an ostensible failure of the experiment in Islamic brotherhood, would cause some mental confusion and uneasiness among people whose faith was weak. This was the anxiety that lay heavy on the Prophet’s heart. The words, "thou didst fear men," seem to point to this fear of his. But, as mentioned above, God had His own purpose in the failure of this marriage. He wanted to show that there was nothing in this failure to be afraid of. On the contrary, it was a blessing in disguise and was intended to serve a great purpose and therefore the Prophet’s fear was unfounded.
Christian and other hostile Critics of Islam pretend to find in the Holy Prophet’s marriage to Zainab a basis for mean attacks on him. It is stated that the Prophet, having by chance seen Zainab, became enamoured of her beauty and Zaid, having come to know of his desire to marry her, sought divorce from her. The fact that the Holy Prophet’s most inveterate enemies, before whose eyes the whole affair had actually taken place, dared not attribute the base motives ascribed to him by these critics after so many centuries, completely knocks the bottom from under this base and totally unfounded charge. Zainab was the Prophet’s own cousin and being so closely related to him he must have seen her many times, for "Purdah" had not as yet been enjoined. Besides, it was in deference to his own persistently expressed wish that Zainab had reluctantly agreed to marry Zaid. It is on record that she and her brother had desired before her marriage with Zaid that she should be taken in marriage by the Holy Prophet himself. What wasit that prevented the Holy Prophet from marrying her when she was a virgin and when she herself ardently desired to get married to him? The whole story evidently seems to be a figment of the "fertile" imagination of the Holy Prophet’s hostile critics and it is an insult to human intellect to give the least credence to it. But while there are some Christian critics like Muir and Margoliouth who find fault with the Holy Prophet for having married Zainab, there are others better informed and more honest like the good and noble Rev. Bosworth Smith who found nothing in this marriage to cavil at. The Rev, gentleman says:
"It should be remembered, however, that most of Mohammed’s marriages may be explained, at least, as much by his pity for the forlorn condition of the persons concerned, as by other motives. They were almost all of them widows who were not remarkable either for their beauty or their wealth, but quite the reverse. May not this fact, and his undoubted faithfulness to Khadijah till her dying day, and till he himself was fifty years of age, give us additional ground to hope that calumny or misconception has been at work in the story of Zainab" - ("Mohammed and Mohammedanism").
2357
Zaid bin Harith, a young freed man of the Holy Prophet whom he had adopted as his son before adoption was declared unlawful in Islam.
2357A
Had divorced her; Watar means, need; want; an object of want (Lane).
2357B
Zainab was the daughter of the Holy Prophet’s aunt, hence a full- blooded Arab lady, intensely proud of her ancestry and exalted social status. Islam had envisaged and given to the world a civilization and culture in which there were no class divisions, no hereditary nobility, no vested interests. All men were free and equal in the sight of God. The Holy Prophet wanted to start with his own family to carry into actual effect this noble ideal of Islam. He wished to marry Zainab to Zaid, who in spite of having been freed by the Prophet, unfortunately still carried the stigma of slavery in the minds of some people. It was exactly this stigma of slavery, this invidious distinction between 'free' and 'slave' which the Holy Prophet sought to remove by Zainab’s marriage with Zaid. In deference to the Holy Prophet’s wish Zainab agreed to the proposal. The purpose of the Holy Prophet was achieved. The marriage levelled to the ground class distinctions and divisions. It was a practical demonstration of Islam
۞ أَلَمْ يَأْنِ لِلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ أَن تَخْشَعَ قُلُوبُهُمْ لِذِكْرِ ٱللَّهِ وَمَا نَزَلَ مِنَ ٱلْحَقِّ وَلَا يَكُونُوا۟ كَٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُوا۟ ٱلْكِتَٰبَ مِن قَبْلُ فَطَالَ عَلَيْهِمُ ٱلْأَمَدُ فَقَسَتْ قُلُوبُهُمْ ۖ وَكَثِيرٌ مِّنْهُمْ فَٰسِقُونَ
2:75; 6:44
21:45.
2:75; 6:44.
Commentary:
The verse seems to refer to the latter-day Muslims when as a result of neglecting the teachings of Islam they will have become spiritually corrupt, morally depraved and politically impotent. The verse means to bring home to them the realization of their all-round degradation and makes to them a pathetic appeal. "Has not the time arrived yet," it seems to say to them, "now that they have sunk to the lowest depths of degradation, they should turn to God and act upon the teachings of their religion which once raised them to the highest peaks of greatness, grandeur and glory."
a
21:45.
b
2:75; 6:44.
b
21:45.
c
2:75; 6:44.
4159
Commentary:
The verse seems to refer to the latter-day Muslims when as a result of neglecting the teachings of Islam they will have become spiritually corrupt, morally depraved and politically impotent. The verse means to bring home to them the realization of their all-round degradation and makes to them a pathetic appeal. "Has not the time arrived yet," it seems to say to them, "now that they have sunk to the lowest depths of degradation, they should turn to God and act upon the teachings of their religion which once raised them to the highest peaks of greatness, grandeur and glory."
a
21:45.b
2:75; 6:44
وَأَهْدِيَكَ إِلَىٰ رَبِّكَ فَتَخْشَىٰ
یعنی موسیٰ علیہ السلام نے تمام گذشتہ اور آئندہ نبیوں کے طریق کے مطابق یہی کیا کہ فرعون سے کہا کہ بہتر ہے مجھے مان کر نصیحت حاصل کرو۔ اور میری آمد کو اپنے لئے عذاب کا موجب مَت بناؤ۔
3
یعنی موسیٰ علیہ السلام نے تمام گذشتہ اور آئندہ نبیوں کے طریق کے مطابق یہی کیا کہ فرعون سے کہا کہ بہتر ہے مجھے مان کر نصیحت حاصل کرو۔ اور میری آمد کو اپنے لئے عذاب کا موجب مَت بناؤ۔