كَانَتْ
Appears 29 times in Quran
Derived Words (10)
Words derived from the stem "كَانَتْ".
- and was
- is
- It will be
- lies
- of
- she came
- she was
- there be
- was
- were
- which
- who is
- will
- and becomes
- and shall become
- it belonged to
- They shall all become
- And this is indeed
- There is
- that acted wrongfully
- It was
- It will be
- stood by
- verily Prayer is enjoined on the believers
- Why was there no
Occurrences in Quran
Found 29 verses containing "كَانَتْ".
قُلْ إِن كَانَتْ لَكُمُ ٱلدَّارُ ٱلْءَاخِرَةُ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ خَالِصَةً مِّن دُونِ ٱلنَّاسِ فَتَمَنَّوُا۟ ٱلْمَوْتَ إِن كُنتُمْ صَٰدِقِينَ
2:112; 62:7.
یعنی رسول کریم صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم سے مباہلہ کرو۔ جیسا کہ سورۃ آل عمران آیت ۶۲ میں ہے۔
2:112; 62:7.
The meaning is that if the Jews are convinced that they are justified in their claim that God will bestow His favours upon them alone, and that the Holy Prophet’s claim is false, then they should invoke death and destruction upon the liar.
d
2:112; 62:7.
3
یعنی رسول کریم صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم سے مباہلہ کرو۔ جیسا کہ سورۃ آل عمران آیت ۶۲ میں ہے۔
a
2:112; 62:7.
101
Commentary:
See under 2:96 below.
c
2:112; 62:7.
122A
The meaning is that if the Jews are convinced that they are justified in their claim that God will bestow His favours upon them alone, and that the Holy Prophet’s claim is false, then they should invoke death and destruction upon the liar.
وَكَذَٰلِكَ جَعَلْنَٰكُمْ أُمَّةً وَسَطًا لِّتَكُونُوا۟ شُهَدَآءَ عَلَى ٱلنَّاسِ وَيَكُونَ ٱلرَّسُولُ عَلَيْكُمْ شَهِيدًا ۗ وَمَا جَعَلْنَا ٱلْقِبْلَةَ ٱلَّتِى كُنتَ عَلَيْهَآ إِلَّا لِنَعْلَمَ مَن يَتَّبِعُ ٱلرَّسُولَ مِمَّن يَنقَلِبُ عَلَىٰ عَقِبَيْهِ ۚ وَإِن كَانَتْ لَكَبِيرَةً إِلَّا عَلَى ٱلَّذِينَ هَدَى ٱللَّهُ ۗ وَمَا كَانَ ٱللَّهُ لِيُضِيعَ إِيمَٰنَكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ بِٱلنَّاسِ لَرَءُوفٌ رَّحِيمٌ
3:111.
22:79.
اَلْوَسَط (Al-Wasat) 的意思是处于中间地位; 优越和高贵的地位 (اَقْرَبْ)。此词在这里作优越和高贵的意义解, 在3:111中穆斯林也被称为最优越的民族。
这里告诉穆斯林, 他们每一代都应保卫和注意下一代。作为最优越的民族, 他们就有责任始终防止降低他们所应有的很高的人生标准, 并留意每一代也都沿着享有穆圣的崇高同伴的荣誉的人们所追随的道路前进。因此穆圣应当是他的直接继承者的监护人, 而他们同时应依次成为自己的接班人的监护人, 如此等等。此话也可含意为, 根据天命, 穆斯林应成为人类的领袖, 并按他们的善行, 接受安拉特别恩惠, 因而其他人们势必得出结论, 穆斯林信奉一门真正的宗教。这样, 他们将为其他人证明伊斯兰教的真理, 就象穆圣对他们说来是这一宗教真理的见证人。
阿拉伯人非常热爱天房这麦加的古代礼拜寺。这是从伊布拉欣时代留传给他们的民族禁寺。因此要他们在伊斯兰教一开始就放弃天房而接受有经人朝向即耶路撒冷的圣寺时, 真是对他们的一个严峻的考验{布哈理和جَرِيْر (Jarir)}。之后在麦地那, 把耶路撒冷的圣寺的朝向改为天房, 这证明对犹太教徒和基督教徒都是一个极大的考验。因此, 这种更改证明对 “有经人” 和穆斯林以及对麦加的偶像崇拜者也都是一种考验。
从这些话中可以看出, 穆圣已按安拉的指令选定了耶路撒冷的圣寺作为他的朝向; 但由于安拉本来打算把它只作为临时的朝向而以后准备代之以供全人类永远朝向的天房, 因此关于临时性的朝向的命令在 «古兰经» 中是没有的。这表明所有临时性应用的指示不被包括在 «古兰经» 启示内; 只有那些属于永久性的指示才包括在内。«古兰经» 含有一些现在已经废弃的经文的这种见解是绝无事实根据的。
3:111.
22:79.
Al-Wasat means, occupying the middle position; good and exalted in rank (Aqrab). The word is used here in the sense of good and exalted. In 3:111 also Muslims have been called the best people.
Muslims are here told that each generation of theirs should guard and watch over the next generation. Being the best people, it is incumbent upon them to be always on their guard against falling away from the high standard of life expected of them, and to see that each succeeding generation also follows the path pursued by those who enjoyed the ennobling company of the Holy Prophet. Thus, the Holy Prophet was to be a guardian over his immediate followers, while they in turn were to be guardians over their successors, and so on. The words may also mean that, as decreed, Muslims are to become the leaders of men and by their good deeds are to become recipients of God’s special favours, and thus other people will be forced to the conclusion that they follow a true religion. In this way they (Muslims) will bear witness to the truth of Islam for other people, just as the Holy Prophet was a witness of its truth for them.
It appears from these words that the Holy Prophet had adopted the Temple at Jerusalem as his Qiblah by God’s command; but as it was meant by God to be only a temporary Qiblah and was to be subsequently replaced by the Ka‘bah which was to be the Qiblah for all mankind for all times, the command with regard to the temporary Qiblah was not included in the Qur’an. This shows that all such commandments as possessed temporary application were not included in the Quranic revelation; only those of a permanent nature were included in it. The theory that the Qur’an contains some verses that now stand abrogated is quite unfounded.
The Arabs were greatly attached to the Ka‘bah, the ancient house of worship at Mecca. It was their national Temple which had come down to them from the days of Abraham. It, therefore, proved a severe trial for them when they were asked at the very inception of Islam to abandon it in favour of the Temple at Jerusalem which was the Qiblah of the People of the Book (Bukhari & Jarir). And later on at Medina the change of the Qiblah from the Temple at Jerusalem to the Ka‘bah proved a great trial for both Jews and Christians. Thus the change proved a trial for both the "People of the Book" and the Muslims and also for the Meccan idolaters.
3:111.
22:79.
Important Words:
وسطا (exalted) is derived from وسط meaning, he stood in between two things. وسط فی حسبه (wasata) or وسط (wasuta) means, he was or became good and noble. الوسط means: (1) occupying the middle position or taking the middle course; (2) good and exalted in rank (Aqrab). That the word وسط is used here in the sense of good and exalted, is clear from 3:111 where Muslims are called the best people.
لنعلم (that We might know) signifies that We may make known or distinguish. In fact, God being Omniscient knows all things; so He does not stand in need of knowing a thing because everything is already known to Him. The word has been used elsewhere also in this sense (33:51). The expression ممن (from him who) occurring after it also shows that the word is used here in the sense of distinguishing or making known to the people.
Commentary:
The clause, and thus have We made you an exalted nation, refers to, and is connected with, the concluding clause of the preceding verse, i.e. He guides whom He pleases to the right path. God means to say that whatever guidance He sends down to the Muslims is for their own good and it is through His guidance that they have been made an exalted nation. So in the matter of the Qiblah, too, they should be prepared to accept His guidance which is meant for their own good. This will make them "guardians over men" and the Messenger of God a "guardian over the Muslims".
Muslims are told that, as decreed by God, they are to become the leaders of men and win the pleasure of God by their good deeds and that on that account they will naturally become recipients of God’s special favours, with the result that other people will be forced to the conclusion that the religion which they follow is the true religion. In this way will Muslims bear witness to the truth of Islam, just as the Holy Prophet was a witness of its truth for them.
Another meaning of the clause, that you may be guardians over men, is that each generation of Muslims should guard and watch over the next generation. Being the best of people, it is incumbent upon them to be always on their guard against falling away from the high standard of life expected of them, and to see that each succeeding generation also follows the path pursued by those who enjoyed the ennobling company of the Holy Prophet. Thus the Holy Prophet was to be a guardian over his immediate followers, while they in turn were to be guardians over their successors, and so on.
Taking the particle علی (over) in the clause under discussion to mean "against" and the word شھید (guardian) to mean "witness", which it often does, the clause would mean "that you may be witnesses against men and the Holy Prophet may be a witness against you"; i.e., the Holy Prophet would serve as a mirror for the Muslims by looking into which they would be able to see their own shortcomings, while the lives of true Muslims would serve as a model for other people who, by comparing their lives with those of true Muslims, would see and realize their own defects and correct them accordingly. This state of affairs could be brought about only if Muslims faithfully followed all the behests of God including the one regarding Qiblah, which was important as a rallying-point for the new community.
It may be noted here that, as hinted in the words, and We did not appoint the Qiblah which thou didst follow, the Holy Prophet had adopted the Temple at Jerusalem as his Qiblah by God’s command; but as it was meant by God to be only a temporary Qiblah, and was to be subsequently replaced by the Ka‘bah which was to be the Islamic Qiblah for all time, the command with regard to the temporary Qiblah was not included in the Quran. This shows that all such commandments as possessed temporary application were not included in the Quran; only those were included which were of a permanent nature. Hence the theory that the Quran contains some verses that now stand abrogated is quite unfounded.
The Arabs were greatly attached to the Ka‘bah, the ancient house of worship at Mecca. It was their national Temple which had come down to them from the days of Abraham. It, therefore, proved a severe trial for them when they were asked at the very inception of Islam at Mecca to abandon the Ka‘bah in favour of the Temple at Jerusalem which was the Qiblah of the People of the Book. And later on at Medina, the change of the Qiblah from the Temple at Jerusalem to the Ka‘bah proved a great trial for both Jews and Christians. It was very hard for them to abandon their Qiblah for a rival temple which had been held sacred by the pagan Arabs. Thus God provided a trial for both the People of the Book and the idolaters of Mecca.
The Temple of Solomon at Jerusalem was not adopted as Qiblah by the Holy Prophet to conciliate the Jewish population of Medina, as is wrongly supposed by Sale and other Christian critics, because it was not at Medina that this Temple was adopted as the Qiblah. It had already been the Qiblah of the Muslims at Mecca where there was no Jewish or Christian population to placate (Bukhari & Jarir). If, by appointing a Qiblah, the Holy Prophet had intended to win over a people, the natural course would have been to appoint the Ka‘bah as a Qiblah while at Mecca and turn round to the Temple of Jerusalem while at Medina. But what actually happened was quite the reverse. Moreover, the Quran expressly says that the adoption of neither of the Qiblahs was meant to win over any people to Islam, but was intended only as a trial to distinguish the true believers from those not true.
The words it does not behove Allah to let your faith go in vain have a twofold meaning: (1) that this change of Qiblah is in no way calculated adversely to affect the faith of Muslims but would actually strengthen it; (2) that if Muslims were not directed to turn to the Ka‘bah, they would not inherit the blessings resulting from the prayers of Abraham offered at the time of its building (2:130). It was impossible that the Companions of the Holy Prophet who had displayed such steadfast loyalty and devotion to their noble ideals, should not have been made heirs to the blessings contained in Abraham’s prayers with which the Promised Prophet was to be so closely associated. The faith of Muslims would, as it were, go in vain if they remained detached from the Ka‘bah and did not inherit its blessings.
d
3:111.
e
22:79.
88
اَلْوَسَط (Al-Wasat) 的意思是处于中间地位; 优越和高贵的地位 (اَقْرَبْ)。此词在这里作优越和高贵的意义解, 在3:111中穆斯林也被称为最优越的民族。
89
这里告诉穆斯林, 他们每一代都应保卫和注意下一代。作为最优越的民族, 他们就有责任始终防止降低他们所应有的很高的人生标准, 并留意每一代也都沿着享有穆圣的崇高同伴的荣誉的人们所追随的道路前进。因此穆圣应当是他的直接继承者的监护人, 而他们同时应依次成为自己的接班人的监护人, 如此等等。此话也可含意为, 根据天命, 穆斯林应成为人类的领袖, 并按他们的善行, 接受安拉特别恩惠, 因而其他人们势必得出结论, 穆斯林信奉一门真正的宗教。这样, 他们将为其他人证明伊斯兰教的真理, 就象穆圣对他们说来是这一宗教真理的见证人。
90
阿拉伯人非常热爱天房这麦加的古代礼拜寺。这是从伊布拉欣时代留传给他们的民族禁寺。因此要他们在伊斯兰教一开始就放弃天房而接受有经人朝向即耶路撒冷的圣寺时, 真是对他们的一个严峻的考验{布哈理和جَرِيْر (Jarir)}。之后在麦地那, 把耶路撒冷的圣寺的朝向改为天房, 这证明对犹太教徒和基督教徒都是一个极大的考验。因此, 这种更改证明对 “有经人” 和穆斯林以及对麦加的偶像崇拜者也都是一种考验。
91
从这些话中可以看出, 穆圣已按安拉的指令选定了耶路撒冷的圣寺作为他的朝向; 但由于安拉本来打算把它只作为临时的朝向而以后准备代之以供全人类永远朝向的天房, 因此关于临时性的朝向的命令在 «古兰经» 中是没有的。这表明所有临时性应用的指示不被包括在 «古兰经» 启示内; 只有那些属于永久性的指示才包括在内。«古兰经» 含有一些现在已经废弃的经文的这种见解是绝无事实根据的。
a
3:111.
b
22:79.
150
Important Words:
وسطا (exalted) is derived from وسط meaning, he stood in between two things. وسط فی حسبه (wasata) or وسط (wasuta) means, he was or became good and noble. الوسط means: (1) occupying the middle position or taking the middle course; (2) good and exalted in rank (Aqrab). That the word وسط is used here in the sense of good and exalted, is clear from 3:111 where Muslims are called the best people.
لنعلم (that We might know) signifies that We may make known or distinguish. In fact, God being Omniscient knows all things; so He does not stand in need of knowing a thing because everything is already known to Him. The word has been used elsewhere also in this sense (33:51). The expression ممن (from him who) occurring after it also shows that the word is used here in the sense of distinguishing or making known to the people.
Commentary:
The clause, and thus have We made you an exalted nation, refers to, and is connected with, the concluding clause of the preceding verse, i.e. He guides whom He pleases to the right path. God means to say that whatever guidance He sends down to the Muslims is for their own good and it is through His guidance that they have been made an exalted nation. So in the matter of the Qiblah, too, they should be prepared to accept His guidance which is meant for their own good. This will make them "guardians over men" and the Messenger of God a "guardian over the Muslims".
Muslims are told that, as decreed by God, they are to become the leaders of men and win the pleasure of God by their good deeds and that on that account they will naturally become recipients of God’s special favours, with the result that other people will be forced to the conclusion that the religion which they follow is the true religion. In this way will Muslims bear witness to the truth of Islam, just as the Holy Prophet was a witness of its truth for them.
Another meaning of the clause, that you may be guardians over men, is that each generation of Muslims should guard and watch over the next generation. Being the best of people, it is incumbent upon them to be always on their guard against falling away from the high standard of life expected of them, and to see that each succeeding generation also follows the path pursued by those who enjoyed the ennobling company of the Holy Prophet. Thus the Holy Prophet was to be a guardian over his immediate followers, while they in turn were to be guardians over their successors, and so on.
Taking the particle علی (over) in the clause under discussion to mean "against" and the word شھید (guardian) to mean "witness", which it often does, the clause would mean "that you may be witnesses against men and the Holy Prophet may be a witness against you"; i.e., the Holy Prophet would serve as a mirror for the Muslims by looking into which they would be able to see their own shortcomings, while the lives of true Muslims would serve as a model for other people who, by comparing their lives with those of true Muslims, would see and realize their own defects and correct them accordingly. This state of affairs could be brought about only if Muslims faithfully followed all the behests of God including the one regarding Qiblah, which was important as a rallying-point for the new community.
It may be noted here that, as hinted in the words, and We did not appoint the Qiblah which thou didst follow, the Holy Prophet had adopted the Temple at Jerusalem as his Qiblah by God’s command; but as it was meant by God to be only a temporary Qiblah, and was to be subsequently replaced by the Ka‘bah which was to be the Islamic Qiblah for all time, the command with regard to the temporary Qiblah was not included in the Quran. This shows that all such commandments as possessed temporary application were not included in the Quran; only those were included which were of a permanent nature. Hence the theory that the Quran contains some verses that now stand abrogated is quite unfounded.
The Arabs were greatly attached to the Ka‘bah, the ancient house of worship at Mecca. It was their national Temple which had come down to them from the days of Abraham. It, therefore, proved a severe trial for them when they were asked at the very inception of Islam at Mecca to abandon the Ka‘bah in favour of the Temple at Jerusalem which was the Qiblah of the People of the Book. And later on at Medina, the change of the Qiblah from the Temple at Jerusalem to the Ka‘bah proved a great trial for both Jews and Christians. It was very hard for them to abandon their Qiblah for a rival temple which had been held sacred by the pagan Arabs. Thus God provided a trial for both the People of the Book and the idolaters of Mecca.
The Temple of Solomon at Jerusalem was not adopted as Qiblah by the Holy Prophet to conciliate the Jewish population of Medina, as is wrongly supposed by Sale and other Christian critics, because it was not at Medina that this Temple was adopted as the Qiblah. It had already been the Qiblah of the Muslims at Mecca where there was no Jewish or Christian population to placate (Bukhari & Jarir). If, by appointing a Qiblah, the Holy Prophet had intended to win over a people, the natural course would have been to appoint the Ka‘bah as a Qiblah while at Mecca and turn round to the Temple of Jerusalem while at Medina. But what actually happened was quite the reverse. Moreover, the Quran expressly says that the adoption of neither of the Qiblahs was meant to win over any people to Islam, but was intended only as a trial to distinguish the true believers from those not true.
The words it does not behove Allah to let your faith go in vain have a twofold meaning: (1) that this change of Qiblah is in no way calculated adversely to affect the faith of Muslims but would actually strengthen it; (2) that if Muslims were not directed to turn to the Ka‘bah, they would not inherit the blessings resulting from the prayers of Abraham offered at the time of its building (2:130). It was impossible that the Companions of the Holy Prophet who had displayed such steadfast loyalty and devotion to their noble ideals, should not have been made heirs to the blessings contained in Abraham’s prayers with which the Promised Prophet was to be so closely associated. The faith of Muslims would, as it were, go in vain if they remained detached from the Ka‘bah and did not inherit its blessings.
b
3:111.
c
22:79.
160
Al-Wasat means, occupying the middle position; good and exalted in rank (Aqrab). The word is used here in the sense of good and exalted. In 3:111 also Muslims have been called the best people.
161
Muslims are here told that each generation of theirs should guard and watch over the next generation. Being the best people, it is incumbent upon them to be always on their guard against falling away from the high standard of life expected of them, and to see that each succeeding generation also follows the path pursued by those who enjoyed the ennobling company of the Holy Prophet. Thus, the Holy Prophet was to be a guardian over his immediate followers, while they in turn were to be guardians over their successors, and so on. The words may also mean that, as decreed, Muslims are to become the leaders of men and by their good deeds are to become recipients of God’s special favours, and thus other people will be forced to the conclusion that they follow a true religion. In this way they (Muslims) will bear witness to the truth of Islam for other people, just as the Holy Prophet was a witness of its truth for them.
162
It appears from these words that the Holy Prophet had adopted the Temple at Jerusalem as his Qiblah by God’s command; but as it was meant by God to be only a temporary Qiblah and was to be subsequently replaced by the Ka‘bah which was to be the Qiblah for all mankind for all times, the command with regard to the temporary Qiblah was not included in the Qur’an. This shows that all such commandments as possessed temporary application were not included in the Quranic revelation; only those of a permanent nature were included in it. The theory that the Qur’an contains some verses that now stand abrogated is quite unfounded.
163
The Arabs were greatly attached to the Ka‘bah, the ancient house of worship at Mecca. It was their national Temple which had come down to them from the days of Abraham. It, therefore, proved a severe trial for them when they were asked at the very inception of Islam to abandon it in favour of the Temple at Jerusalem which was the Qiblah of the People of the Book (Bukhari & Jarir). And later on at Medina the change of the Qiblah from the Temple at Jerusalem to the Ka‘bah proved a great trial for both Jews and Christians. Thus the change proved a trial for both the "People of the Book" and the Muslims and also for the Meccan idolaters.
يُوصِيكُمُ ٱللَّهُ فِىٓ أَوْلَٰدِكُمْ ۖ لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ ٱلْأُنثَيَيْنِ ۚ فَإِن كُنَّ نِسَآءً فَوْقَ ٱثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُنَّ ثُلُثَا مَا تَرَكَ ۖ وَإِن كَانَتْ وَٰحِدَةً فَلَهَا ٱلنِّصْفُ ۚ وَلِأَبَوَيْهِ لِكُلِّ وَٰحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا ٱلسُّدُسُ مِمَّا تَرَكَ إِن كَانَ لَهُۥ وَلَدٌ ۚ فَإِن لَّمْ يَكُن لَّهُۥ وَلَدٌ وَوَرِثَهُۥٓ أَبَوَاهُ فَلِأُمِّهِ ٱلثُّلُثُ ۚ فَإِن كَانَ لَهُۥٓ إِخْوَةٌ فَلِأُمِّهِ ٱلسُّدُسُ ۚ مِنۢ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِى بِهَآ أَوْ دَيْنٍ ۗ ءَابَآؤُكُمْ وَأَبْنَآؤُكُمْ لَا تَدْرُونَ أَيُّهُمْ أَقْرَبُ لَكُمْ نَفْعًا ۚ فَرِيضَةً مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا
4:177.
这节经文规定一个死者的近亲不论男女或出生的先后应得他遗产的份额。儿女、双亲、丈夫与妻子是主要继承人, 如果他们活着, 不论在什么情况下应得自己的一份, 其他有名份的亲戚只能在特殊情况下得到他们的一份。男的比女的应得的份额要多一倍, 因为他们负责维持家计 (مَعَانِی, Ma‘ani, ii.P.32)。这节经文开始时制定关于子女所得份额的比例的一般法则。一个儿子应得等于两个女儿的份额。因此, 凡是儿子和女儿都有的情况下, 就按这一法则办事。如果只有女儿而没有儿子, 经文规定把遗产的三分之二分给两个以上的女儿; 把二分之一给独生女。如果是两个女儿那应该分得多少, 经文没明确说明。但此句中用一个连接词 ف (fa, 但是), “但是如果有两个以上的女儿”, 这清楚地指出两个女儿已包括在前面 “两个女儿” 这几个字中。而且两个女人应得的份数可以在这节经文开始时所说的男女应得份数的比例中推想出来。按照那个比例, 一个儿子可得两个女儿的份数。因此, 如果有一个儿子和一个女儿, 那个儿子可得三分之二的遗产。可是, 由于一个儿子可得等于 “两个女儿” 的份额, 因此没有儿子而有两个女儿的情况下可得三分之二, 即等于经文明确说明给三个女儿相同的份额。因此, 这节经文的结构表明, 如果死者有两个女儿而没有儿子, 她们像有三个女儿的情况那样也可得三分之二的遗产。假如 «古兰经» 的这一句并不指两个女儿应得的份额, 那么, 这句用字就应该像这样, “一个男人应得一个女人两倍的份额”, 而不是像现在那样的句子。关于双亲的份额经文中谈了三种情况: (1) 如果一个人死了留下一个或几个儿女, 那么, 父母亲中每个人应得六分之一。(2) 如果一个人死后无儿女, 他的父母是惟一继承人 (死者没有妻子或丈夫), 那么, 母亲应得三分之一的财产, 其馀的三分之二归父亲所有。(3) 还有第三种情况, 实际上是第二种情况的例外。一个人死后无嗣, 他的父母亲是惟一的继承人, 但他有兄弟姐妹, 那么, 虽然他的兄弟姐妹不能继承他的财产, 但他们的存在会影响他父母亲的份额, 因为, 在这种情况下, 母亲将得六分之一 (不是像第二种情况那样得三份之一), 其余的六分之五归父亲所有。父亲在这种情况下被授予较大的份额的理由是, 父亲还要负担死者兄弟姐妹的生活。关于继承权的这一论题, 在随后的经文中继续谈下去。
4:177.
Father and mother both (Lane).
Walad means, (1) a child, son, daughter or a young one; (2) children, sons, daughters, offspring or young ones. The word is used both as singular and plural, feminine and masculine (Lane).
The verse prescribes suitable shares for all near relatives in the property of a deceased person without distinction of sex or order of birth. Children, parents, husbands and wives are the principal heirs who, if alive, get suitable shares in all circumstances, other relations having a title only in special cases. A male has been given double the share of a female because he has been made responsible for the maintenance of his family (Ma‘ani, ii. p.32). The verse begins by laying down a general rule as to the proportion of shares between sons and daughters. A son is to have as much as two daughters. So, wherever there are both sons and daughters, this rule will come in force. When, however, there are only daughters and no son, the verse allots two- thirds of the legacy to the daughters, if there are more than two of them; and one-half if there is only one. The share of daughters in case there are two is not expressly stated. But the use of the conjunction fa’ (but) in the clause, but if there be
4:177.
Important Words:
ابویه (his parents) is really ابوینه, the letter ن being dropped owing to اضافة. The word ابوین is the genitive of ابوان which is the dual form of اب which is originally ابو meaning, father or grandfather or any male ancestor or paternal uncle. ابوانliterally meaning "two fathers" signifies "father and mother" (Lane).
ولد (child) is very general in its significance meaning: (1) a child, son, daughter or a young one; (2) children, sons, daughters, offspring or young ones. Thus the word is used both as singular and plural, feminine and masculine (Lane).
Commentary:
This and the succeeding verse combined with the last verse of the Surah give the Islamic law of inheritance in a nutshell.
Islam prescribes suitable shares for all near relatives in the property of a deceased person without distinction of sex or order of birth. Children, parents, husbands and wives are the principal heirs who, if alive, get suitable shares in all circumstances, other relations having a title only in special cases. A male has been given double the share of a female because he has been made responsible for the maintenance of the family (Ma‘ani, vol. ii, p. 32).
The Islamic law of inheritance is perfect and it safeguards against all evils that result from laws prescribed by, or in vogue in, other faiths and communities. It aims at a fair distribution of wealth and equal chances of progress for all. To give the property of a deceased parent to the firstborn son only or to exclude the female members from inheritance or to disinherit parents in the presence of children has proved a veritable curse for society in many ways—moral, social and economic. The Islamic law of inheritance, reinforced by the system of Zakah (prescribed alms) and by the injunction prohibiting the giving and taking of interest, provides a golden mean between capitalism and communism—the two evil extremes of the present-day economic system.
The verse begins by laying down a general rule as to the proportion of shares between sons and daughters. A son is to have as much as two daughters. So wherever there are both sons and daughters, this rule will come in force. When, however, there are only daughters and no son, the verse allots two-thirds of the legacy to the daughters if there are more than two of them, and one-half if there is only one. The share of daughters, in case there are two, is not expressly stated. But the use of the conjunction فا (but) in the clause, but if there be females only, numbering more than two, clearly points to the fact that the share of two females has been referred to in the preceding words "two females". Moreover, the share of two females can be gathered from what has already been said in the beginning of the verse about the ratio between the shares of the males and the females. According to that ratio, a son is to get as much as two daughters. Thus, if there be one son and one daughter, the son will have two-thirds. But as the share of one son has been made equal to that of "two daughters", the latter, in case there is no son, will have two-thirds, viz., the same share as has been expressly fixed for three daughters. Thus, the very construction of the verse shows that if there be two daughters and no son, they too, as in the case of three daughters, will get two-thirds. If it had not been the object of the Quran to point to the share of two daughters in the clause, it would have been something like this, "a male shall have twice as much as a female", and not as it is now.
The above meaning is corroborated by a saying of the Holy Prophet himself. It is related that when a Companion of the Holy Prophet named Sa‘d bin Rabi‘ah died in the Battle of Uhud, leaving two daughters and one widow, his brother took away the whole property, leaving nothing for the two daughters. Thereupon the widow of Sa‘d went to the Holy Prophet and said, "Here are the two daughters of Sa‘d. Their uncle has taken the whole of his property and has left nothing for them." The Holy Prophet told her to wait till God should decide the matter. Then this verse was revealed and the Prophet called upon Sa‘d’s brother to give two-thirds of Sa‘d’s property to his two daughters and one-eighth to their mother and keep the rest for himself (Tirmidhi & Dawud).
The verse speaks of three cases as regards the share of the parents: (1) If a person dies leaving one or more children, then each of his parents shall have one-sixth; (2) If a person dies issueless and his parents are the sole heirs (there being no wife or husband of the deceased person), then the mother will have one-third of the property and the remaining two-thirds will go to the father; (3) There is a third case, which is really an exception to the second case. A man dies without issue and his parents are his sole heirs, but he has brothers or sisters. Then, although his brother or sisters will not inherit from him, yet their presence will affect the share of the parents, for, in this case, the mother will have one-sixth (instead of one-third, as in the second case) and the remaining five-sixths will go to the father. The reason why the father is awarded a larger share in this case is that the father has also to support the brothers or sisters of the deceased. The subject of inheritance is continued in the succeeding verse.
b
4:177.
314
这节经文规定一个死者的近亲不论男女或出生的先后应得他遗产的份额。儿女、双亲、丈夫与妻子是主要继承人, 如果他们活着, 不论在什么情况下应得自己的一份, 其他有名份的亲戚只能在特殊情况下得到他们的一份。男的比女的应得的份额要多一倍, 因为他们负责维持家计 (مَعَانِی, Ma‘ani, ii.P.32)。这节经文开始时制定关于子女所得份额的比例的一般法则。一个儿子应得等于两个女儿的份额。因此, 凡是儿子和女儿都有的情况下, 就按这一法则办事。如果只有女儿而没有儿子, 经文规定把遗产的三分之二分给两个以上的女儿; 把二分之一给独生女。如果是两个女儿那应该分得多少, 经文没明确说明。但此句中用一个连接词 ف (fa, 但是), “但是如果有两个以上的女儿”, 这清楚地指出两个女儿已包括在前面 “两个女儿” 这几个字中。而且两个女人应得的份数可以在这节经文开始时所说的男女应得份数的比例中推想出来。按照那个比例, 一个儿子可得两个女儿的份数。因此, 如果有一个儿子和一个女儿, 那个儿子可得三分之二的遗产。可是, 由于一个儿子可得等于 “两个女儿” 的份额, 因此没有儿子而有两个女儿的情况下可得三分之二, 即等于经文明确说明给三个女儿相同的份额。因此, 这节经文的结构表明, 如果死者有两个女儿而没有儿子, 她们像有三个女儿的情况那样也可得三分之二的遗产。假如 «古兰经» 的这一句并不指两个女儿应得的份额, 那么, 这句用字就应该像这样, “一个男人应得一个女人两倍的份额”, 而不是像现在那样的句子。关于双亲的份额经文中谈了三种情况: (1) 如果一个人死了留下一个或几个儿女, 那么, 父母亲中每个人应得六分之一。(2) 如果一个人死后无儿女, 他的父母是惟一继承人 (死者没有妻子或丈夫), 那么, 母亲应得三分之一的财产, 其馀的三分之二归父亲所有。(3) 还有第三种情况, 实际上是第二种情况的例外。一个人死后无嗣, 他的父母亲是惟一的继承人, 但他有兄弟姐妹, 那么, 虽然他的兄弟姐妹不能继承他的财产, 但他们的存在会影响他父母亲的份额, 因为, 在这种情况下, 母亲将得六分之一 (不是像第二种情况那样得三份之一), 其余的六分之五归父亲所有。父亲在这种情况下被授予较大的份额的理由是, 父亲还要负担死者兄弟姐妹的生活。关于继承权的这一论题, 在随后的经文中继续谈下去。
b
4:177.
494
Important Words:
ابویه (his parents) is really ابوینه, the letter ن being dropped owing to اضافة. The word ابوین is the genitive of ابوان which is the dual form of اب which is originally ابو meaning, father or grandfather or any male ancestor or paternal uncle. ابوانliterally meaning "two fathers" signifies "father and mother" (Lane).
ولد (child) is very general in its significance meaning: (1) a child, son, daughter or a young one; (2) children, sons, daughters, offspring or young ones. Thus the word is used both as singular and plural, feminine and masculine (Lane).
Commentary:
This and the succeeding verse combined with the last verse of the Surah give the Islamic law of inheritance in a nutshell.
Islam prescribes suitable shares for all near relatives in the property of a deceased person without distinction of sex or order of birth. Children, parents, husbands and wives are the principal heirs who, if alive, get suitable shares in all circumstances, other relations having a title only in special cases. A male has been given double the share of a female because he has been made responsible for the maintenance of the family (Ma‘ani, vol. ii, p. 32).
The Islamic law of inheritance is perfect and it safeguards against all evils that result from laws prescribed by, or in vogue in, other faiths and communities. It aims at a fair distribution of wealth and equal chances of progress for all. To give the property of a deceased parent to the firstborn son only or to exclude the female members from inheritance or to disinherit parents in the presence of children has proved a veritable curse for society in many ways—moral, social and economic. The Islamic law of inheritance, reinforced by the system of Zakah (prescribed alms) and by the injunction prohibiting the giving and taking of interest, provides a golden mean between capitalism and communism—the two evil extremes of the present-day economic system.
The verse begins by laying down a general rule as to the proportion of shares between sons and daughters. A son is to have as much as two daughters. So wherever there are both sons and daughters, this rule will come in force. When, however, there are only daughters and no son, the verse allots two-thirds of the legacy to the daughters if there are more than two of them, and one-half if there is only one. The share of daughters, in case there are two, is not expressly stated. But the use of the conjunction فا (but) in the clause, but if there be females only, numbering more than two, clearly points to the fact that the share of two females has been referred to in the preceding words "two females". Moreover, the share of two females can be gathered from what has already been said in the beginning of the verse about the ratio between the shares of the males and the females. According to that ratio, a son is to get as much as two daughters. Thus, if there be one son and one daughter, the son will have two-thirds. But as the share of one son has been made equal to that of "two daughters", the latter, in case there is no son, will have two-thirds, viz., the same share as has been expressly fixed for three daughters. Thus, the very construction of the verse shows that if there be two daughters and no son, they too, as in the case of three daughters, will get two-thirds. If it had not been the object of the Quran to point to the share of two daughters in the clause, it would have been something like this, "a male shall have twice as much as a female", and not as it is now.
The above meaning is corroborated by a saying of the Holy Prophet himself. It is related that when a Companion of the Holy Prophet named Sa‘d bin Rabi‘ah died in the Battle of Uhud, leaving two daughters and one widow, his brother took away the whole property, leaving nothing for the two daughters. Thereupon the widow of Sa‘d went to the Holy Prophet and said, "Here are the two daughters of Sa‘d. Their uncle has taken the whole of his property and has left nothing for them." The Holy Prophet told her to wait till God should decide the matter. Then this verse was revealed and the Prophet called upon Sa‘d’s brother to give two-thirds of Sa‘d’s property to his two daughters and one-eighth to their mother and keep the rest for himself (Tirmidhi & Dawud).
The verse speaks of three cases as regards the share of the parents: (1) If a person dies leaving one or more children, then each of his parents shall have one-sixth; (2) If a person dies issueless and his parents are the sole heirs (there being no wife or husband of the deceased person), then the mother will have one-third of the property and the remaining two-thirds will go to the father; (3) There is a third case, which is really an exception to the second case. A man dies without issue and his parents are his sole heirs, but he has brothers or sisters. Then, although his brother or sisters will not inherit from him, yet their presence will affect the share of the parents, for, in this case, the mother will have one-sixth (instead of one-third, as in the second case) and the remaining five-sixths will go to the father. The reason why the father is awarded a larger share in this case is that the father has also to support the brothers or sisters of the deceased. The subject of inheritance is continued in the succeeding verse.
b
4:177.
573
Father and mother both (Lane).
574
Walad means, (1) a child, son, daughter or a young one; (2) children, sons, daughters, offspring or young ones. The word is used both as singular and plural, feminine and masculine (Lane).
574A
The verse prescribes suitable shares for all near relatives in the property of a deceased person without distinction of sex or order of birth. Children, parents, husbands and wives are the principal heirs who, if alive, get suitable shares in all circumstances, other relations having a title only in special cases. A male has been given double the share of a female because he has been made responsible for the maintenance of his family (Ma‘ani, ii. p.32). The verse begins by laying down a general rule as to the proportion of shares between sons and daughters. A son is to have as much as two daughters. So, wherever there are both sons and daughters, this rule will come in force. When, however, there are only daughters and no son, the verse allots two- thirds of the legacy to the daughters, if there are more than two of them; and one-half if there is only one. The share of daughters in case there are two is not expressly stated. But the use of the conjunction fa’ (but) in the clause, but if there be
فَإِذَا قَضَيْتُمُ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ فَٱذْكُرُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ قِيَٰمًا وَقُعُودًا وَعَلَىٰ جُنُوبِكُمْ ۚ فَإِذَا ٱطْمَأْنَنتُمْ فَأَقِيمُوا۟ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ ۚ إِنَّ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ كَانَتْ عَلَى ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ كِتَٰبًا مَّوْقُوتًا
یعنی جنگ اور خطرہ کی حالت کی طرح جلدی جلدی نہیں۔
3:192.
2:240.
As in the midst of a battle formal Prayers are either said in haste, or performed in the form of one Rak‘at, Muslims are enjoined in this verse, that in order to make up the deficiency, they should remember God and pray to Him in an informal manner after the obligatory service is over. This is to compensate for the shortening of Prayer.
3:192.
2:240.
Commentary:
As in the midst of a battle, formal Prayers are either said in haste, or performed in the form of one Rak‘at only. Muslims are enjoined in this verse, with a view to making up the deficiency, to continue remembering God and praying to Him in an informal manner after the obligatory service is over. This was to compensate, on the one hand, for the shortening of Prayer and, on the other, to serve as a means of drawing the special aid and help of God in a time of great danger.
The expression, And when you are secure (from danger), then observe Prayer (in the prescribed form), very clearly brings out the difference between the words صلوا or اقضوا الصلوة (pray or offer Prayer) and the words اقیموا الصلوة (observe Prayer). The latter expression signifies observing Prayer attentively with all its necessary conditions. The verse thus clearly shows that Islam does not look upon the hasty performance of Prayer as coming under the injunction, اقیموا الصلوة (observe Prayer). See also 2:4.
a
3:192.
b
2:240.
1
یعنی جنگ اور خطرہ کی حالت کی طرح جلدی جلدی نہیں۔
a
3:192.
b
2:240.
572
Commentary:
As in the midst of a battle, formal Prayers are either said in haste, or performed in the form of one Rak‘at only. Muslims are enjoined in this verse, with a view to making up the deficiency, to continue remembering God and praying to Him in an informal manner after the obligatory service is over. This was to compensate, on the one hand, for the shortening of Prayer and, on the other, to serve as a means of drawing the special aid and help of God in a time of great danger.
The expression, And when you are secure (from danger), then observe Prayer (in the prescribed form), very clearly brings out the difference between the words صلوا or اقضوا الصلوة (pray or offer Prayer) and the words اقیموا الصلوة (observe Prayer). The latter expression signifies observing Prayer attentively with all its necessary conditions. The verse thus clearly shows that Islam does not look upon the hasty performance of Prayer as coming under the injunction, اقیموا الصلوة (observe Prayer). See also 2:4.
a
3:192.
b
2:240.
662
As in the midst of a battle formal Prayers are either said in haste, or performed in the form of one Rak‘at, Muslims are enjoined in this verse, that in order to make up the deficiency, they should remember God and pray to Him in an informal manner after the obligatory service is over. This is to compensate for the shortening of Prayer.
فَأَنجَيْنَٰهُ وَأَهْلَهُۥٓ إِلَّا ٱمْرَأَتَهُۥ كَانَتْ مِنَ ٱلْغَٰبِرِينَ
26:171-172; 27:58; 29:34; 37:135-136.
عذاب سے پہلے حضرت لوطؑ کو کہا گیا تھا کہ وہاں سے نکل جائیں۔ مگر ان کی دو بیٹیاں اس شہر میں بیاہی ہوئی تھیں۔ ان کی بیوی نے خدا کا حکم نہ مانا اور بیٹیوں کی محبت کی وجہ سے پیچھے رہ گئی۔ اور وہ عذاب میں مبتلا ہو گئی۔
26:171-172; 27:58; 29:34; 37:135-136.
26:171-172; 27:58; 29:34; 37:135-136.
Important Words:
الغابرین (who stayed behind) is derived from غبر i.e. he or it remained, lasted or continued; he stayed, tarried or waited; or contrarily, he or it passed away or went away; or it (a wound) was or became in a bad state, especially after once being healed; or it healed externally while it was in a withering state internally; he (a man) hid enmity or hatred in his heart. So غابر is one who remains or stays or tarries behind or waits, etc. (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
The verse does not necessarily imply that the wife of Lot was a disbeliever. The fact that she tarried to inform her relatives of the impending punishment shows that she probably possessed some faith. As, however, she disregarded the command that no warning of the coming calamity was to be given to any disbeliever, she was punished. The word غابرین(who stayed behind) treated under Important Words above throws some interesting light on the real condition of Lot’s wife. Most probably she outwardly believed in her husband but was like a withering wound within and stayed or lingered behind, while Lot and his companions hurriedly left the doomed place.
There exists some difference of opinion among students of history as to the situation of the place where the people of Lot lived. According to some, the Dead Sea is the site of the ruined cities. The Quran, however, appears to place it on the route from Medina to Syria (15:80).
f
26:171-172; 27:58; 29:34; 37:135-136.
1
عذاب سے پہلے حضرت لوطؑ کو کہا گیا تھا کہ وہاں سے نکل جائیں۔ مگر ان کی دو بیٹیاں اس شہر میں بیاہی ہوئی تھیں۔ ان کی بیوی نے خدا کا حکم نہ مانا اور بیٹیوں کی محبت کی وجہ سے پیچھے رہ گئی۔ اور وہ عذاب میں مبتلا ہو گئی۔
b
26:171-172; 27:58; 29:34; 37:135-136.
982
Important Words:
الغابرین (who stayed behind) is derived from غبر i.e. he or it remained, lasted or continued; he stayed, tarried or waited; or contrarily, he or it passed away or went away; or it (a wound) was or became in a bad state, especially after once being healed; or it healed externally while it was in a withering state internally; he (a man) hid enmity or hatred in his heart. So غابر is one who remains or stays or tarries behind or waits, etc. (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
The verse does not necessarily imply that the wife of Lot was a disbeliever. The fact that she tarried to inform her relatives of the impending punishment shows that she probably possessed some faith. As, however, she disregarded the command that no warning of the coming calamity was to be given to any disbeliever, she was punished. The word غابرین(who stayed behind) treated under Important Words above throws some interesting light on the real condition of Lot’s wife. Most probably she outwardly believed in her husband but was like a withering wound within and stayed or lingered behind, while Lot and his companions hurriedly left the doomed place.
There exists some difference of opinion among students of history as to the situation of the place where the people of Lot lived. According to some, the Dead Sea is the site of the ruined cities. The Quran, however, appears to place it on the route from Medina to Syria (15:80).
e
26:171-172; 27:58; 29:34; 37:135-136.
ٱلَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ ٱلرَّسُولَ ٱلنَّبِىَّ ٱلْأُمِّىَّ ٱلَّذِى يَجِدُونَهُۥ مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِى ٱلتَّوْرَىٰةِ وَٱلْإِنجِيلِ يَأْمُرُهُم بِٱلْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَىٰهُمْ عَنِ ٱلْمُنكَرِ وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ ٱلطَّيِّبَٰتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ ٱلْخَبَٰٓئِثَ وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَٱلْأَغْلَٰلَ ٱلَّتِى كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ فَٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ بِهِۦ وَعَزَّرُوهُ وَنَصَرُوهُ وَٱتَّبَعُوا۟ ٱلنُّورَ ٱلَّذِىٓ أُنزِلَ مَعَهُۥٓ ۙ أُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْمُفْلِحُونَ
48:30.
3:105.
29:49; 42:53; 62:3.
اُمِّی (Ummi) 的意思是, 属于或附属于母亲的, 也就是说, 像婴孩那样的天真无知; 没有启示的经典的人, 尤其是一个阿拉伯人; 不知道如何看书或写字的人;属于麦加的人, 它叫 اُمُّ الْقُرَى (Ummul-Qura), 即各城市之母。如果 Ummi 这个单词的意思作 “不识字的” 解释, 那么, 这节经文意示: 虽然穆圣没有受过任何教育而且是不大识字的; 但安拉赐给他如此丰富的知识使他能把光明和引导给予甚至大家认为是学识和启发最高超的那些人。有些基督教作者假装怀疑穆圣不能看书写字的这一事实。牧师先生惠利 (Wherry) 在他的 «古兰经» 注释中说, “他和阿里在一起应该在同一家庭中受过训练, 阿里既知道看书又知道写字, 而他却没有受到相似的教育, 这是可能的吗? 他进行一种重要的商业好几年而没有文字的一些知识, 这是可能的吗? 在较后的年月里他肯定能看书写字。传说告诉我们, 他对他的一个书记员穆阿威亚 (مُعَاوِيَة, Mu‘awiyah) 说, 把 ب (ba’) 画得要直, 把 س (sin) 分得要确当’, 等等, 而且在他的最后时刻他叫人拿写字的东西给他。他用抄写员并不妨碍他知道书写的方法, 因为在那个时代, 这样地用抄写员是平常的事, 即使最有学问的人中间也有这样做的。” 这种论据是太可怜了: 因为穆圣 “和阿里在一个屋里受训练, 阿里既能看书又能写字”, 因此他也学会了读书写字。这只是暴露了这位牧师先生对穆圣的一生的许多主要事实的无知。阿里与穆圣不可能在一起受训练和长大, 他们的年龄相差许多岁数。穆圣比阿里大二十九岁之多。且不说他们两人年龄相差之大明显地排除了穆圣和阿里在一起受教育和训练的可能性, 而且阿里就是在穆圣亲自的养护和训练之下在他家里受训练的 (هِشَامْ, Hisham,希沙姆)。阿布塔利布 (اَبُوْ طَالِبْ, Abu Talib) 是一个非常贫穷的人, 穆圣在他家里长大, 他意识不到学问和知识的价值, 掌握知识和学问在他那时候也不认为是一种财富和收获。穆圣因此在他家里一直是不识字的。可是, 阿里是在穆圣自己的家里长大的, 穆圣与一个极有名望的富有女子卡迪贾 (خَدِيْجَة, Khadijah) 结婚, 使他可支配极丰富的财产。他也充份认识到良好的教育是一件无价的东西。因此, 在他慈祥的关怀和崇高的影响之下, 用那时的标准来判断, 阿里自然长成一个受有良好教育的青年。
惠里 (Wherry) 的第二个不同意见是, 假如穆圣是文盲, 他不知道如何看书写字的话, 他就不能成为像他实际上那样的一个成功的商人。这一个不同意见是由于对穆圣时代的一个好的和成功的阿拉伯商人的错误概念而产生的。假如惠里知道在亚洲, 即使在现在二十世纪, 还有许多非常成功的商人, 他们甚至连初等教育都没有受过的话, 那么, 他就不会有这种反对意见。穆圣时代的麦加, 教育并不很受欢迎。几乎没有几个人能看书写字, 却有许多人的生意做得非常成功和兴旺。那时在阿拉伯, 教育并不是一个好商人绝对必要的东西。而且, 事实是卡迪贾给了穆圣一个叫梅萨拉 (مَيْسَرَة, Maisarah) 的奴隶。这个奴隶会看书写字并且总是在穆圣做买卖的旅途上陪着他。这就有力驳斥了惠利的反对意见。
传说, 穆圣有一次要穆阿威亚把字母 ب(ba’) 和 س(sin) 写对, 这一件事看来并不十分可靠。在阿巴斯王朝时期, 贬抑伍麦叶王朝的许多传说都是假造出来的。这一传说力图突出尊贵的伍麦亚家族中的一个杰出人员穆阿威亚, 把他说是一个几乎没有受过教育的人, 连像 ب (ba’) 和 س (sin) 这样一些简单的字母都不能写对, 虽然如此, 即使这一传说证明是可靠的, 它也不能说明穆圣是识字的。因为他已习惯于口授 «古兰经», 对他说来已经熟悉了字母的一般形状并对其中一个写错的字作了指点, 这不是不可能的。
穆圣在他生命的最后时刻叫人去拿笔和纸, 也不能证实惠利的假设。每当要启示任何一节经文时, 穆圣常常叫人拿笔和纸来, 然后口授给他的书记员中的一个人, 要他写下向他启示的内容, 这是历史上的既成事实。仅仅叫人去拿笔和纸这件事, 因此也不能证明穆圣自己知道读书和写字。惠利用来支持他的论点的这句话: “奉你养主之名而宣读吧” 也证明不了什么东西。اِقْرَأ (Iqra’) (读) 这个阿拉伯单词用于96:2经文中, 它不仅意味着一份写出来的东西, 而且也意味着重复和背诵 (复述) 一个人听到别人讲过的东西。而且, 圣训证实了这一个事实: 第一次启示时, 吉布里尔天使讲出 اِقْرَأ (Iqra’) 读吧这句话时, 穆圣面前事实上没有放着什么写出来的东西可读。不过叫他口头复述天使正在对他朗诵的内容。还有, 有些基督教作者声称, 穆圣不能读书写字源出于一种误解, 即他反复说自己是一个 “不识字的先知”。这一种话是既无根据又不可思议。那些和穆圣长年来日夜相处并看见他看书写字的人居然看不出穆圣是不识字而仅仅听他反复说自己不识字就会误信他不识字, 岂不令人惊异。至于 “他 (穆圣) 用抄写员并不妨碍他知道书写的方法, 因为在那个时代, 这样用抄写员是平常的事, 即使最有学问的人中间也有这样做的”, 这一论点暴露出惠利对阿拉伯和伊斯兰教历史的无知。事实是, 在穆圣那个时代, 阿拉伯人中间还没有 عُلَمَاء (Ulama’), 即现在这个单词被理解的意义--------学者, 他们也不会经常雇用抄写员或文书。没有阿拉伯人雇用过抄写员的事例记录。学者们的意见完全一致, 认定穆圣在启示开始对他降示以前, 是既不能看书又不能写字的人。«古兰经» 对这点是十分清楚地阐明了的: 穆圣至少在声称自己为安拉的使者以前是不识字的。(29:49) 但是在他接近后半生时他学会辩认少数几个单词。
«圣经» 上几处有关穆圣的预言, 见 «马太» 23:39; «约翰» 14:16, 26; 16:7-14; «申命记» 18:18和 33:2; «以赛亚书» 21:13-17和20:62; «雅歌» 1:5-6; «哈巴谷书» 3:3-7。
یعنی محمد رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم۔
یہود اور نصاریٰ کی طرف ضمیر جاتی ہے۔
See 3:105.
29:49; 42:53; 62:3.
48:30.
Ummi means, belonging to or pertaining to the mother, i.e. as innocent as a child at the breast of its mother; one not having a revealed Scripture, particularly an Arab; one who does not know how to read or write; one belonging to Mecca which was known as Ummul-Qura, i.e. the mother of towns. If the word Ummi be taken in the sense of "unlettered," the verse would signify that although the Holy Prophet had received no education whatever and was quite unread, yet God vouchsafed to him such knowledge as would impart light and guidance even to those who are considered to be most advanced in learning and enlightenment. Some Christian writers have pretended to doubt the fact that the Holy Prophet could not read or write. Says Reverend Wherry in his 'Commentary of the Qur’an'—. "Is it likely that he should have been trained in the same household with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write and not have received similar instruction? Could he have conducted an important mercantile busin
For some of the prophecies of the Bible about the Holy Prophet see Matt. 23: 39: John, 14: 16, 26; 16: 7-14; Deut. 18: 18 and 33: 2; Isa. 21: 13-17 and 62: 2, Song of Solomon, 1: 5, 6; Habakkuk 3-7.
29:49; 42:53; 62:3.
48:30.
See 3:105.
Important Words:
امی (Immaculate One) is derived from ام. They say امه i.e. he repaired to it; or he aimed at or sought after it; or he endeavoured to get it. ماکنت اما ولقد اممت means, thou wast not a mother, but thou hast come to be sought like a mother. امیmeans, belonging to or pertaining to the mother, i.e. as innocent as a child at the breast of its mother. The word also means, one not having a revealed Scripture, parti-cularly an Arab; one who does not know the art of reading or writing; one belonging to Mecca which was known as ام القری i.e. the mother of towns. See also 3:21.
اغلال (shackles) is the plural of غل (ghullun) which is derived from غل (ghalla). They say غل فلانا i.e. he put upon the neck or the hand of such a one a collar or a manacle, etc. غل, therefore, means, a ring or collar of iron put upon the neck; a shackle for the neck or the hand; a pinion or manacle for the hand; a shackle of iron collecting together the two hands to the neck; a difficult and fatiguing work. The Arabs say ھذاغل فی عنقك i.e. this is tied to your neck, meaning, it is inseparable from you and the punishment of it will stick to you (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
This verse qualifies and explains the last sentence of the previous verse, viz. those who believe in Our Signs.
The verse puts the words "Messenger" and "Prophet" side by side which may lead some to think that one may be a Messenger without being a Prophet or vice versa. But this is not so. A رسول (Messenger) of God is also a نبی (Prophet) of God. The former epithet is applied to him in his relation to God from Whom he brings a message, while the latter is applied to him in his relation to men to whom he conveys that message, the word نبی (Prophet) meaning, one who prophesies, or makes known hidden secrets.
The word امی (Ummi) literally means "belonging to the mother", i.e. as innocent as a newborn child. The Promised Prophet, who is none other than the Holy Prophet of Islam, has been called امی because he was to be innocent like a child at the breast of its mother. The word has also been translated as "illiterate" or "one belonging to Mecca" or "an Arab", but "innocent" or "immaculate" is a preferable rendering, inasmuch as it is in keeping with the sense of the prophecy contained in Deut. 18:18-22 to which this verse particularly refers and wherein truthfulness has been mentioned as a distinctive feature of the Promised Prophet. For some of the prophecies of the Bible about the Holy Prophet see under 2:42 and also Matt. 23:39; John 14:16, 26; 16:7-14; Acts 3:21-24.
If the word امی be taken in the sense of "unlettered", the verse would signify that although the Prophet had received no education whatever and was quite unread and illiterate, yet God vouchsafed to him such knowledge as can impart light and guidance even to those who are considered to be most advanced in learning and enlightenment.
The illiteracy (امیة) of the Holy Prophet, mentioned in this verse and believed to have also been hinted at in 10:17, has been subjected to much hostile criticism. George Sale, a well-known Christian commentator of the Quran, writes as follows: "For so old was Muhammad before he took upon him to be a Prophet, during which time his fellow-citizens well knew that he had not applied himself to learning of any sort, nor frequented learned men, nor had ever exercised himself in composing verses or orations, whereby he might acquire the art of rhetoric or elegance of speech" (Prelim. Disc, Section II).
Referring to this view of Sale, another Christian commentator of the Quran, the Rev. E. M. Wherry, says:
"This view, however, does not agree with what is recorded of his previous career. Is it likely that he should have been trained in the same household with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write, and not have received similar instruction? Could he have conducted an important mercantile business for years without some knowledge of letters? That he could read and write in later years is certain. Tradition tells us, he said to Mu‘awiyah, one of his secretaries: 'Draw the ب straight, divide the س properly', etc., and that in his last moments he called for writing materials. The question arises, when did he acquire this art? The commentators say that God gave him the power, as he did his inspiration, and they quote chap. xcvi. 4, one of the earliest verses of the Quran, in proof. Certainly that verse seems to teach clearly that he could write as well as read, though it by no means teaches that he had not received the knowledge of both beforehand, or that he did not receive it in the ordinary way. His use of amanuenses does not militate against his knowledge of the art of writing, for such use of amanuenses was common in that age, even among the most learned. But still there remains the testimony of many traditions and the almost universal belief of Muhammadans. How account for this? I am inclined to think it originated with a misunderstanding of Muhammad’s repeated claim that he was the "Illiterate Prophet", or rather the "Prophet of the Illiterate", the term "illiterate" being generally applied by the Jews to the Arabs. See notes on chap. v. 85, 86. This misunderstanding turned out to the furtherance of Muhammad’s claims, inasmuch as the miracle of the matchless style of the Quran was enhanced by the consideration that the Prophet was illiterate. On the whole, we think there is very good reason for believing Muhammad to have been acquainted with the art of both reading and writing from an early period in his life" (Commentary of the Quran, ii. 326).
The above constitutes the gist of Wherry’s criticism of the generally accepted view that the Holy Prophet was امی or illiterate. But this contention seems to possess no substance. It is indeed a poor argument to say that because the Prophet "had been trained in the same house with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write", therefore he should also have learnt reading and writing. It only betrays ignorance of elementary facts of the Holy Prophet’s life on the part of the reverend gentleman. Even a desultory acquaintance with the life history of the Holy Prophet should make one know that ‘Ali and the Holy Prophet could not be brought up together. There was a great difference between the ages of the two. The Prophet was no less than 29 years older than ‘Ali; therefore, it was impossible for the two to be trained and brought up together.
Those whom prejudice against the Holy Prophet has not blinded to the patent facts of history know that, let alone the Prophet being educated and trained together with ‘Ali, which the great disparity in their ages evidently obviated, it was ‘Ali who got his training in the house and under the fostering care of the Holy Prophet (Hisham). Abu Talib in whose house the Holy Prophet was brought up was a man of very meagre means. He did not know the value of learning and knowledge nor was their possession regarded as an asset and acquisition in his time. The Holy Prophet, therefore, remained illiterate in his house. But ‘Ali was brought up in the house of the Holy Prophet himself, whose marriage with Khadijah, a wealthy lady of great repute, had placed ample means at his disposal. The Prophet also fully realized how priceless a thing good education was. So under his benign care and ennobling influence, ‘Ali, judged by the standards of that time, naturally grew up to be a young man of good education.
Wherry’s second objection is that if the Holy Prophet had been illiterate and did not know how to read and write, he could not have proved such a successful business man as he actually was. This objection is born of the mistaken concept of a good and successful Arab business man of the Prophet’s time. Judging by the present European standards of a successful business man, Wherry thought that lack of education and success in business could not go together. He would not have made this objection if he had known that in Asia even in the present twentieth century, highly successful business men are to be found who have not received even elementary education. In Mecca, in the Holy Prophet’s time, education was not much in favour. There were very few persons there who could read and write, though hundreds carried on most successful and flourishing business. Education was not at that time regarded in Arabia as the sine qua non of a good business man. Moreover, the fact that Khadijah had given the Prophet, a slave named Maisara who knew reading and writing and who always accompanied him on his trade journeys, knocks the bottom out of Wherry’s objection.
The tradition which says that the Holy Prophet had once asked Mu‘awiyah to write correctly the letters ب and س does not seem to be quite reliable. In the ‘Abbasid period many traditions derogatory to the Umayyads were forged. This tradition seeks to show off Mu‘awiyah, a prominent member of the distinguished House of Umayyah, as a man of very poor education who could not even write properly such simple letters as ب and س. Even, however, if this tradition be proved to be reliable, it does not show that the Holy Prophet was literate, because he had become so used to dictating the Quran that it was not impossible for him to have become familiar with the general form of letters and to give instruction regarding an improperly written word. It is also possible that someone, while rehearsing some portion of the Quran to the Prophet, might have stopped at a certain place, not being able to decipher the writing, and the Holy Prophet having asked the cause of stopping, the reader might have replied that the delay was due to the letters ب and سnot having been written properly or legibly. This might have led the Holy Prophet to instruct Mu‘awiyah to see that the letters were written correctly.
The fact that the Holy Prophet sent for pen and paper in the last moments of his life also lends no support to Wherry’s assumption. It is an established fact of history that whenever any verse was revealed, the Holy Prophet used to send for pen and paper and dictate to one of his scribes what had been revealed to him. The mere sending for pen and paper cannot, therefore, prove that the Holy Prophet himself knew how to read and write.
Nor do the words, referred to by Wherry in support of his contention viz. "read in the name of thy Lord", prove anything. The Arabic word اقرء (read) used in the verse referred to above not only means the reading of a written thing, but also repeating and rehearsing what one hears from another person. Again, the words ھویحسن القراءة (i.e. he recites well) occurring in a tradition can be spoken of even of a blind man who can recite the Quran properly and well. Moreover, the Hadith establishes the fact that when, at the time of the first revelation, the angel Gabriel said to the Prophet اقرء(read), no writing was actually placed before him to read. He was simply asked to repeat orally what the angel was reciting to him. The word قراءة not only means to read a writing but to repeat orally or recite or rehearse what another man has uttered.
Wherry’s inference that the idea that the Holy Prophet could not read or write originated with a misunderstanding of his repeated claim that he was the "Illiterate Prophet", is as strange as it is ill-based. It is really very surprising to say that those with whom he had lived day and night for years could not find out that he was illiterate but were misled into this belief only by his own repeated claim that he was امی (illiterate). Only a man of Wherry’s hostile attitude could come to such a conclusion. The question is whether it was the Prophet’s own contempor-aries who suffered from this misunderstanding or those who came afterwards. If it were the former, then the question would naturally arise how those, who saw him daily with their own eyes reading and writing, could possibly fall victims to the glaring misunderstanding that he was illiterate. If it were the latter class, even then the whole theory of misunderstanding advanced by Wherry looks frivolous, because the argument put forward by him is that because the Holy Prophet was considered to be illiterate, therefore, the matchless style of the Quran was regarded as a miracle. This inference is both foolish and flimsy, inasmuch as Muslims and other contemporaries of the Prophet, who were fully aware that he knew quite well how to read and write, could never believe in such a miracle.
Wherry’s last argument in support of his contention, that "his (the Holy Prophet’s) use of amanuenses does not militate against his knowledge of the art of writing, for such use of amanuenses was common in that age, even among the most learned," betrays his ignorance of Arab and Islamic history. The fact is that there were no ulema or learned men among the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet in the sense in which this word is understood now, nor were they used to keeping amanuenses and scribes. There is no instance on record of an amanuensis having been kept by an Arab. We know of only one learned man among the Meccans in the Prophet’s time, viz. Waraqah bin Naufal, and he was his own secretary. It is a pity that in their zeal for misrepresenting Islam, some Christian writers do not even hesitate to invent historical facts.
The words, and remove from them their burden and shackles, occurring in the latter part of the verse, contain a hint that by accepting the Promised Prophet Christians will get rid of the curse of the original sin of Adam and Eve and of the punishment thereof which, according to them, has dogged their footsteps through no fault of theirs.
a
48:30.
b
3:105.
f
29:49; 42:53; 62:3.
521
اُمِّی (Ummi) 的意思是, 属于或附属于母亲的, 也就是说, 像婴孩那样的天真无知; 没有启示的经典的人, 尤其是一个阿拉伯人; 不知道如何看书或写字的人;属于麦加的人, 它叫 اُمُّ الْقُرَى (Ummul-Qura), 即各城市之母。如果 Ummi 这个单词的意思作 “不识字的” 解释, 那么, 这节经文意示: 虽然穆圣没有受过任何教育而且是不大识字的; 但安拉赐给他如此丰富的知识使他能把光明和引导给予甚至大家认为是学识和启发最高超的那些人。有些基督教作者假装怀疑穆圣不能看书写字的这一事实。牧师先生惠利 (Wherry) 在他的 «古兰经» 注释中说, “他和阿里在一起应该在同一家庭中受过训练, 阿里既知道看书又知道写字, 而他却没有受到相似的教育, 这是可能的吗? 他进行一种重要的商业好几年而没有文字的一些知识, 这是可能的吗? 在较后的年月里他肯定能看书写字。传说告诉我们, 他对他的一个书记员穆阿威亚 (مُعَاوِيَة, Mu‘awiyah) 说, 把 ب (ba’) 画得要直, 把 س (sin) 分得要确当’, 等等, 而且在他的最后时刻他叫人拿写字的东西给他。他用抄写员并不妨碍他知道书写的方法, 因为在那个时代, 这样地用抄写员是平常的事, 即使最有学问的人中间也有这样做的。” 这种论据是太可怜了: 因为穆圣 “和阿里在一个屋里受训练, 阿里既能看书又能写字”, 因此他也学会了读书写字。这只是暴露了这位牧师先生对穆圣的一生的许多主要事实的无知。阿里与穆圣不可能在一起受训练和长大, 他们的年龄相差许多岁数。穆圣比阿里大二十九岁之多。且不说他们两人年龄相差之大明显地排除了穆圣和阿里在一起受教育和训练的可能性, 而且阿里就是在穆圣亲自的养护和训练之下在他家里受训练的 (هِشَامْ, Hisham,希沙姆)。阿布塔利布 (اَبُوْ طَالِبْ, Abu Talib) 是一个非常贫穷的人, 穆圣在他家里长大, 他意识不到学问和知识的价值, 掌握知识和学问在他那时候也不认为是一种财富和收获。穆圣因此在他家里一直是不识字的。可是, 阿里是在穆圣自己的家里长大的, 穆圣与一个极有名望的富有女子卡迪贾 (خَدِيْجَة, Khadijah) 结婚, 使他可支配极丰富的财产。他也充份认识到良好的教育是一件无价的东西。因此, 在他慈祥的关怀和崇高的影响之下, 用那时的标准来判断, 阿里自然长成一个受有良好教育的青年。
惠里 (Wherry) 的第二个不同意见是, 假如穆圣是文盲, 他不知道如何看书写字的话, 他就不能成为像他实际上那样的一个成功的商人。这一个不同意见是由于对穆圣时代的一个好的和成功的阿拉伯商人的错误概念而产生的。假如惠里知道在亚洲, 即使在现在二十世纪, 还有许多非常成功的商人, 他们甚至连初等教育都没有受过的话, 那么, 他就不会有这种反对意见。穆圣时代的麦加, 教育并不很受欢迎。几乎没有几个人能看书写字, 却有许多人的生意做得非常成功和兴旺。那时在阿拉伯, 教育并不是一个好商人绝对必要的东西。而且, 事实是卡迪贾给了穆圣一个叫梅萨拉 (مَيْسَرَة, Maisarah) 的奴隶。这个奴隶会看书写字并且总是在穆圣做买卖的旅途上陪着他。这就有力驳斥了惠利的反对意见。
传说, 穆圣有一次要穆阿威亚把字母 ب(ba’) 和 س(sin) 写对, 这一件事看来并不十分可靠。在阿巴斯王朝时期, 贬抑伍麦叶王朝的许多传说都是假造出来的。这一传说力图突出尊贵的伍麦亚家族中的一个杰出人员穆阿威亚, 把他说是一个几乎没有受过教育的人, 连像 ب (ba’) 和 س (sin) 这样一些简单的字母都不能写对, 虽然如此, 即使这一传说证明是可靠的, 它也不能说明穆圣是识字的。因为他已习惯于口授 «古兰经», 对他说来已经熟悉了字母的一般形状并对其中一个写错的字作了指点, 这不是不可能的。
穆圣在他生命的最后时刻叫人去拿笔和纸, 也不能证实惠利的假设。每当要启示任何一节经文时, 穆圣常常叫人拿笔和纸来, 然后口授给他的书记员中的一个人, 要他写下向他启示的内容, 这是历史上的既成事实。仅仅叫人去拿笔和纸这件事, 因此也不能证明穆圣自己知道读书和写字。惠利用来支持他的论点的这句话: “奉你养主之名而宣读吧” 也证明不了什么东西。اِقْرَأ (Iqra’) (读) 这个阿拉伯单词用于96:2经文中, 它不仅意味着一份写出来的东西, 而且也意味着重复和背诵 (复述) 一个人听到别人讲过的东西。而且, 圣训证实了这一个事实: 第一次启示时, 吉布里尔天使讲出 اِقْرَأ (Iqra’) 读吧这句话时, 穆圣面前事实上没有放着什么写出来的东西可读。不过叫他口头复述天使正在对他朗诵的内容。还有, 有些基督教作者声称, 穆圣不能读书写字源出于一种误解, 即他反复说自己是一个 “不识字的先知”。这一种话是既无根据又不可思议。那些和穆圣长年来日夜相处并看见他看书写字的人居然看不出穆圣是不识字而仅仅听他反复说自己不识字就会误信他不识字, 岂不令人惊异。至于 “他 (穆圣) 用抄写员并不妨碍他知道书写的方法, 因为在那个时代, 这样用抄写员是平常的事, 即使最有学问的人中间也有这样做的”, 这一论点暴露出惠利对阿拉伯和伊斯兰教历史的无知。事实是, 在穆圣那个时代, 阿拉伯人中间还没有 عُلَمَاء (Ulama’), 即现在这个单词被理解的意义--------学者, 他们也不会经常雇用抄写员或文书。没有阿拉伯人雇用过抄写员的事例记录。学者们的意见完全一致, 认定穆圣在启示开始对他降示以前, 是既不能看书又不能写字的人。«古兰经» 对这点是十分清楚地阐明了的: 穆圣至少在声称自己为安拉的使者以前是不识字的。(29:49) 但是在他接近后半生时他学会辩认少数几个单词。
522
«圣经» 上几处有关穆圣的预言, 见 «马太» 23:39; «约翰» 14:16, 26; 16:7-14; «申命记» 18:18和 33:2; «以赛亚书» 21:13-17和20:62; «雅歌» 1:5-6; «哈巴谷书» 3:3-7。
1
یعنی محمد رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم۔
2
یہود اور نصاریٰ کی طرف ضمیر جاتی ہے۔
d
29:49; 42:53; 62:3.
e
48:30.
f
See 3:105.
1047
Important Words:
امی (Immaculate One) is derived from ام. They say امه i.e. he repaired to it; or he aimed at or sought after it; or he endeavoured to get it. ماکنت اما ولقد اممت means, thou wast not a mother, but thou hast come to be sought like a mother. امیmeans, belonging to or pertaining to the mother, i.e. as innocent as a child at the breast of its mother. The word also means, one not having a revealed Scripture, parti-cularly an Arab; one who does not know the art of reading or writing; one belonging to Mecca which was known as ام القری i.e. the mother of towns. See also 3:21.
اغلال (shackles) is the plural of غل (ghullun) which is derived from غل (ghalla). They say غل فلانا i.e. he put upon the neck or the hand of such a one a collar or a manacle, etc. غل, therefore, means, a ring or collar of iron put upon the neck; a shackle for the neck or the hand; a pinion or manacle for the hand; a shackle of iron collecting together the two hands to the neck; a difficult and fatiguing work. The Arabs say ھذاغل فی عنقك i.e. this is tied to your neck, meaning, it is inseparable from you and the punishment of it will stick to you (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
This verse qualifies and explains the last sentence of the previous verse, viz. those who believe in Our Signs.
The verse puts the words "Messenger" and "Prophet" side by side which may lead some to think that one may be a Messenger without being a Prophet or vice versa. But this is not so. A رسول (Messenger) of God is also a نبی (Prophet) of God. The former epithet is applied to him in his relation to God from Whom he brings a message, while the latter is applied to him in his relation to men to whom he conveys that message, the word نبی (Prophet) meaning, one who prophesies, or makes known hidden secrets.
The word امی (Ummi) literally means "belonging to the mother", i.e. as innocent as a newborn child. The Promised Prophet, who is none other than the Holy Prophet of Islam, has been called امی because he was to be innocent like a child at the breast of its mother. The word has also been translated as "illiterate" or "one belonging to Mecca" or "an Arab", but "innocent" or "immaculate" is a preferable rendering, inasmuch as it is in keeping with the sense of the prophecy contained in Deut. 18:18-22 to which this verse particularly refers and wherein truthfulness has been mentioned as a distinctive feature of the Promised Prophet. For some of the prophecies of the Bible about the Holy Prophet see under 2:42 and also Matt. 23:39; John 14:16, 26; 16:7-14; Acts 3:21-24.
If the word امی be taken in the sense of "unlettered", the verse would signify that although the Prophet had received no education whatever and was quite unread and illiterate, yet God vouchsafed to him such knowledge as can impart light and guidance even to those who are considered to be most advanced in learning and enlightenment.
The illiteracy (امیة) of the Holy Prophet, mentioned in this verse and believed to have also been hinted at in 10:17, has been subjected to much hostile criticism. George Sale, a well-known Christian commentator of the Quran, writes as follows: "For so old was Muhammad before he took upon him to be a Prophet, during which time his fellow-citizens well knew that he had not applied himself to learning of any sort, nor frequented learned men, nor had ever exercised himself in composing verses or orations, whereby he might acquire the art of rhetoric or elegance of speech" (Prelim. Disc, Section II).
Referring to this view of Sale, another Christian commentator of the Quran, the Rev. E. M. Wherry, says:
"This view, however, does not agree with what is recorded of his previous career. Is it likely that he should have been trained in the same household with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write, and not have received similar instruction? Could he have conducted an important mercantile business for years without some knowledge of letters? That he could read and write in later years is certain. Tradition tells us, he said to Mu‘awiyah, one of his secretaries: 'Draw the ب straight, divide the س properly', etc., and that in his last moments he called for writing materials. The question arises, when did he acquire this art? The commentators say that God gave him the power, as he did his inspiration, and they quote chap. xcvi. 4, one of the earliest verses of the Quran, in proof. Certainly that verse seems to teach clearly that he could write as well as read, though it by no means teaches that he had not received the knowledge of both beforehand, or that he did not receive it in the ordinary way. His use of amanuenses does not militate against his knowledge of the art of writing, for such use of amanuenses was common in that age, even among the most learned. But still there remains the testimony of many traditions and the almost universal belief of Muhammadans. How account for this? I am inclined to think it originated with a misunderstanding of Muhammad’s repeated claim that he was the "Illiterate Prophet", or rather the "Prophet of the Illiterate", the term "illiterate" being generally applied by the Jews to the Arabs. See notes on chap. v. 85, 86. This misunderstanding turned out to the furtherance of Muhammad’s claims, inasmuch as the miracle of the matchless style of the Quran was enhanced by the consideration that the Prophet was illiterate. On the whole, we think there is very good reason for believing Muhammad to have been acquainted with the art of both reading and writing from an early period in his life" (Commentary of the Quran, ii. 326).
The above constitutes the gist of Wherry’s criticism of the generally accepted view that the Holy Prophet was امی or illiterate. But this contention seems to possess no substance. It is indeed a poor argument to say that because the Prophet "had been trained in the same house with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write", therefore he should also have learnt reading and writing. It only betrays ignorance of elementary facts of the Holy Prophet’s life on the part of the reverend gentleman. Even a desultory acquaintance with the life history of the Holy Prophet should make one know that ‘Ali and the Holy Prophet could not be brought up together. There was a great difference between the ages of the two. The Prophet was no less than 29 years older than ‘Ali; therefore, it was impossible for the two to be trained and brought up together.
Those whom prejudice against the Holy Prophet has not blinded to the patent facts of history know that, let alone the Prophet being educated and trained together with ‘Ali, which the great disparity in their ages evidently obviated, it was ‘Ali who got his training in the house and under the fostering care of the Holy Prophet (Hisham). Abu Talib in whose house the Holy Prophet was brought up was a man of very meagre means. He did not know the value of learning and knowledge nor was their possession regarded as an asset and acquisition in his time. The Holy Prophet, therefore, remained illiterate in his house. But ‘Ali was brought up in the house of the Holy Prophet himself, whose marriage with Khadijah, a wealthy lady of great repute, had placed ample means at his disposal. The Prophet also fully realized how priceless a thing good education was. So under his benign care and ennobling influence, ‘Ali, judged by the standards of that time, naturally grew up to be a young man of good education.
Wherry’s second objection is that if the Holy Prophet had been illiterate and did not know how to read and write, he could not have proved such a successful business man as he actually was. This objection is born of the mistaken concept of a good and successful Arab business man of the Prophet’s time. Judging by the present European standards of a successful business man, Wherry thought that lack of education and success in business could not go together. He would not have made this objection if he had known that in Asia even in the present twentieth century, highly successful business men are to be found who have not received even elementary education. In Mecca, in the Holy Prophet’s time, education was not much in favour. There were very few persons there who could read and write, though hundreds carried on most successful and flourishing business. Education was not at that time regarded in Arabia as the sine qua non of a good business man. Moreover, the fact that Khadijah had given the Prophet, a slave named Maisara who knew reading and writing and who always accompanied him on his trade journeys, knocks the bottom out of Wherry’s objection.
The tradition which says that the Holy Prophet had once asked Mu‘awiyah to write correctly the letters ب and س does not seem to be quite reliable. In the ‘Abbasid period many traditions derogatory to the Umayyads were forged. This tradition seeks to show off Mu‘awiyah, a prominent member of the distinguished House of Umayyah, as a man of very poor education who could not even write properly such simple letters as ب and س. Even, however, if this tradition be proved to be reliable, it does not show that the Holy Prophet was literate, because he had become so used to dictating the Quran that it was not impossible for him to have become familiar with the general form of letters and to give instruction regarding an improperly written word. It is also possible that someone, while rehearsing some portion of the Quran to the Prophet, might have stopped at a certain place, not being able to decipher the writing, and the Holy Prophet having asked the cause of stopping, the reader might have replied that the delay was due to the letters ب and سnot having been written properly or legibly. This might have led the Holy Prophet to instruct Mu‘awiyah to see that the letters were written correctly.
The fact that the Holy Prophet sent for pen and paper in the last moments of his life also lends no support to Wherry’s assumption. It is an established fact of history that whenever any verse was revealed, the Holy Prophet used to send for pen and paper and dictate to one of his scribes what had been revealed to him. The mere sending for pen and paper cannot, therefore, prove that the Holy Prophet himself knew how to read and write.
Nor do the words, referred to by Wherry in support of his contention viz. "read in the name of thy Lord", prove anything. The Arabic word اقرء (read) used in the verse referred to above not only means the reading of a written thing, but also repeating and rehearsing what one hears from another person. Again, the words ھویحسن القراءة (i.e. he recites well) occurring in a tradition can be spoken of even of a blind man who can recite the Quran properly and well. Moreover, the Hadith establishes the fact that when, at the time of the first revelation, the angel Gabriel said to the Prophet اقرء(read), no writing was actually placed before him to read. He was simply asked to repeat orally what the angel was reciting to him. The word قراءة not only means to read a writing but to repeat orally or recite or rehearse what another man has uttered.
Wherry’s inference that the idea that the Holy Prophet could not read or write originated with a misunderstanding of his repeated claim that he was the "Illiterate Prophet", is as strange as it is ill-based. It is really very surprising to say that those with whom he had lived day and night for years could not find out that he was illiterate but were misled into this belief only by his own repeated claim that he was امی (illiterate). Only a man of Wherry’s hostile attitude could come to such a conclusion. The question is whether it was the Prophet’s own contempor-aries who suffered from this misunderstanding or those who came afterwards. If it were the former, then the question would naturally arise how those, who saw him daily with their own eyes reading and writing, could possibly fall victims to the glaring misunderstanding that he was illiterate. If it were the latter class, even then the whole theory of misunderstanding advanced by Wherry looks frivolous, because the argument put forward by him is that because the Holy Prophet was considered to be illiterate, therefore, the matchless style of the Quran was regarded as a miracle. This inference is both foolish and flimsy, inasmuch as Muslims and other contemporaries of the Prophet, who were fully aware that he knew quite well how to read and write, could never believe in such a miracle.
Wherry’s last argument in support of his contention, that "his (the Holy Prophet’s) use of amanuenses does not militate against his knowledge of the art of writing, for such use of amanuenses was common in that age, even among the most learned," betrays his ignorance of Arab and Islamic history. The fact is that there were no ulema or learned men among the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet in the sense in which this word is understood now, nor were they used to keeping amanuenses and scribes. There is no instance on record of an amanuensis having been kept by an Arab. We know of only one learned man among the Meccans in the Prophet’s time, viz. Waraqah bin Naufal, and he was his own secretary. It is a pity that in their zeal for misrepresenting Islam, some Christian writers do not even hesitate to invent historical facts.
The words, and remove from them their burden and shackles, occurring in the latter part of the verse, contain a hint that by accepting the Promised Prophet Christians will get rid of the curse of the original sin of Adam and Eve and of the punishment thereof which, according to them, has dogged their footsteps through no fault of theirs.
a
See 3:105.
d
29:49; 42:53; 62:3.
e
48:30.
1058
Ummi means, belonging to or pertaining to the mother, i.e. as innocent as a child at the breast of its mother; one not having a revealed Scripture, particularly an Arab; one who does not know how to read or write; one belonging to Mecca which was known as Ummul-Qura, i.e. the mother of towns. If the word Ummi be taken in the sense of "unlettered," the verse would signify that although the Holy Prophet had received no education whatever and was quite unread, yet God vouchsafed to him such knowledge as would impart light and guidance even to those who are considered to be most advanced in learning and enlightenment. Some Christian writers have pretended to doubt the fact that the Holy Prophet could not read or write. Says Reverend Wherry in his 'Commentary of the Qur’an'—. "Is it likely that he should have been trained in the same household with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write and not have received similar instruction? Could he have conducted an important mercantile busin
1059
For some of the prophecies of the Bible about the Holy Prophet see Matt. 23: 39: John, 14: 16, 26; 16: 7-14; Deut. 18: 18 and 33: 2; Isa. 21: 13-17 and 62: 2, Song of Solomon, 1: 5, 6; Habakkuk 3-7.
وَسْـَٔلْهُمْ عَنِ ٱلْقَرْيَةِ ٱلَّتِى كَانَتْ حَاضِرَةَ ٱلْبَحْرِ إِذْ يَعْدُونَ فِى ٱلسَّبْتِ إِذْ تَأْتِيهِمْ حِيتَانُهُمْ يَوْمَ سَبْتِهِمْ شُرَّعًا وَيَوْمَ لَا يَسْبِتُونَ ۙ لَا تَأْتِيهِمْ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ نَبْلُوهُم بِمَا كَانُوا۟ يَفْسُقُونَ
جانور بھی دنوں کو پہچانتے ہیں۔ ہندوؤں کے چشمہ پر جس دن عورتیں آٹا ڈالتی ہیں مچھلیاں کثرت سے آتی ہیں۔
2:66; 4:155.
7:169.
The Qaryah referred to in this verse is said to be Aila (Elath) on the Red Sea. It was situated on the N.E. arm of the Red Sea, in the Aelanitic Gulf (which has derived its name from the place itself) and is mentioned as one of the last stages of the Israelites during their wanderings (1 Kings, 9: 26 & 2 Chron. 8: 17). In Solomon’s time the town came into the possession of the Israelites but afterwards it was probably taken from them. Later Uzziah reconquered it, but under Ahaz it was again lost (Enc. Bib. & Jew. Enc.).
Shurra‘an also means, they came in shoals.
As no fish were caught on the Sabbath day, they had instinctively come to know the time when they were safe and therefore this instinctive feeling of security made them appear on the surface or approach near the coast in large numbers on the Sabbath day. This fact proved too strong a temptation for the Jews and they made arrangements to catch them on the Sabbath day and thus profaned it.
2:66; 4:14, 155
7:169.
Important Words:
شرعا (appearing on the surface) is the plural of شارع which is active participle from شرع. They say شرع فی الامر i.e. he entered upon or began or commenced the affair. شرع المنزل means, the dwelling had its door opening upon a thoroughfare, or the door of the house opened on the road. شرع الشیء means, he raised or elevated the thing much. شارع of which the plural is شرع(shurra‘un) means, entering into water or entering into an affair; appearing on the surface of water; situated on a main road; having its door opening on a road; a main road or thoroughfare; a legislator or announcer of the law. حیتان شرع means, fishes raising their heads above water; or fishes directing themselves from the deep water to the bank; or fishes appearing upon the surface of the water (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
The قریة (town) referred to in this verse is said to be Aila (Elath) on the Red Sea. It was situated on the N. E. arm of the Red Sea, in the Atlantic Gulf (which has derived its name from the place itself) and is mentioned as one of the last stages of the Israelites during their wanderings. It is mentioned also in 1 Kings 9:26 and 2 Chron. 8:17. In Solomon’s time the city came into the possession of the Israelites but afterward it was probably taken from them. Later Uzziah reconquered it, but under Ahaz it was again lost (Enc. Bib. and Jew. Enc.).
As no fish were caught on the Sabbath day, they had instinctively come to know the time when they were safe and, therefore, this instinctive feeling of security made them appear on the surface or approach near the coast in great numbers on the Sabbath day. This fact proved too strong a temptation for the Jews, and they began to make arrangements to catch them on the Sabbath day. The cause of evasion was not far to seek. The Israelites had the fish caught by the non-Israelite people and then purchased them from the latter and in this way sought to evade the commandment, although it was forbidden to them even to make purchases on that day. It was to stop this mean practice that Nehemiah stationed his servants at the gates of Jerusalem to see that no loads were brought in on the Sabbath day (Neh. 13:19).
c
2:66; 4:155.
d
7:169.
1
جانور بھی دنوں کو پہچانتے ہیں۔ ہندوؤں کے چشمہ پر جس دن عورتیں آٹا ڈالتی ہیں مچھلیاں کثرت سے آتی ہیں۔
a
2:66; 4:14, 155
b
7:169.
1053
Important Words:
شرعا (appearing on the surface) is the plural of شارع which is active participle from شرع. They say شرع فی الامر i.e. he entered upon or began or commenced the affair. شرع المنزل means, the dwelling had its door opening upon a thoroughfare, or the door of the house opened on the road. شرع الشیء means, he raised or elevated the thing much. شارع of which the plural is شرع(shurra‘un) means, entering into water or entering into an affair; appearing on the surface of water; situated on a main road; having its door opening on a road; a main road or thoroughfare; a legislator or announcer of the law. حیتان شرع means, fishes raising their heads above water; or fishes directing themselves from the deep water to the bank; or fishes appearing upon the surface of the water (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
The قریة (town) referred to in this verse is said to be Aila (Elath) on the Red Sea. It was situated on the N. E. arm of the Red Sea, in the Atlantic Gulf (which has derived its name from the place itself) and is mentioned as one of the last stages of the Israelites during their wanderings. It is mentioned also in 1 Kings 9:26 and 2 Chron. 8:17. In Solomon’s time the city came into the possession of the Israelites but afterward it was probably taken from them. Later Uzziah reconquered it, but under Ahaz it was again lost (Enc. Bib. and Jew. Enc.).
As no fish were caught on the Sabbath day, they had instinctively come to know the time when they were safe and, therefore, this instinctive feeling of security made them appear on the surface or approach near the coast in great numbers on the Sabbath day. This fact proved too strong a temptation for the Jews, and they began to make arrangements to catch them on the Sabbath day. The cause of evasion was not far to seek. The Israelites had the fish caught by the non-Israelite people and then purchased them from the latter and in this way sought to evade the commandment, although it was forbidden to them even to make purchases on that day. It was to stop this mean practice that Nehemiah stationed his servants at the gates of Jerusalem to see that no loads were brought in on the Sabbath day (Neh. 13:19).
b
2:66; 4:155.
c
7:169.
1063
The Qaryah referred to in this verse is said to be Aila (Elath) on the Red Sea. It was situated on the N.E. arm of the Red Sea, in the Aelanitic Gulf (which has derived its name from the place itself) and is mentioned as one of the last stages of the Israelites during their wanderings (1 Kings, 9: 26 & 2 Chron. 8: 17). In Solomon’s time the town came into the possession of the Israelites but afterwards it was probably taken from them. Later Uzziah reconquered it, but under Ahaz it was again lost (Enc. Bib. & Jew. Enc.).
1064
Shurra‘an also means, they came in shoals.
1064A
As no fish were caught on the Sabbath day, they had instinctively come to know the time when they were safe and therefore this instinctive feeling of security made them appear on the surface or approach near the coast in large numbers on the Sabbath day. This fact proved too strong a temptation for the Jews and they made arrangements to catch them on the Sabbath day and thus profaned it.
فَلَوْلَا كَانَتْ قَرْيَةٌ ءَامَنَتْ فَنَفَعَهَآ إِيمَٰنُهَآ إِلَّا قَوْمَ يُونُسَ لَمَّآ ءَامَنُوا۟ كَشَفْنَا عَنْهُمْ عَذَابَ ٱلْخِزْىِ فِى ٱلْحَيَوٰةِ ٱلدُّنْيَا وَمَتَّعْنَٰهُمْ إِلَىٰ حِينٍ
37:149.
在 «古兰经» 中有六处提及尤努司 (4:164; 6:87; 21:88; 37:140和68:49)。圣经中谈到他是一位以色列先知 (《列王下》14:25), 他受嘱去亚述 (Ashur) 的首都尼尼微 (Nineveh) 并对着它 “哭喊”。据 «古兰经» 记载, 他是被派往他的民族中去的。他既不是以色列人, 也没有被派去尼尼微, 而是派往他自己民族的一部分人中间去的。研究圣经的学者也不同意尤努司是一个以色列人。
37:149.
People of the town.
Jonah has been mentioned at six different places in the Qur’an (4:164; 6:87; 21:88; 37:140 & 68:49). In the Bible he is spoken of as an Israelite Prophet (2 Kings, 14: 25) who was bidden to go to Nineveh, the capital of Ashur and 'cry' against it. According to the Qur’an, however, he was sent to his own people. He was either not an Israelite or he was sent not to Nineveh but to a section of his own people. Biblical scholars themselves are not agreed as to Jonah’s being an Israelite.
37:149.
Important Words:
یونس (Jonah), the name of a Prophet who lived in the 9th Century B. C., is supposed to be derived from انس. They say انس به i.e. he was or became sociable, amiable or friendly with him; he was or became cheerful, gay or gladdened by his presence or company (Lane). See also Commentary below.
Commentary:
For those who are accustomed to pondering over the deep meanings of the Quran, this verse possesses remarkable evidence of the greatness of God’s mercy. The almost pathetic words breathe a strong desire that the world should follow Divine guidance. The verse expresses the deepest regret at the disbelief of the people by asking why there had not been other people who, like the people of Jonah, should have believed in the truth and escaped Divine punishment. The case of the people of Jonah possesses a strong similarity with that of the people of the Holy Prophet. The people of Nineveh first bitterly opposed Jonah so much so that they were threatened with Divine punishment and Jonah prophesied their early destruction; but later they repented and were saved. In the same way, the people of Mecca opposed the Holy Prophet bitterly and persistently, but at the Fall of Mecca they submitted to him and were consequently saved from Divine punishment. Later, all of them believed in his mission and became the inheritors of Divine grace. In this way the Holy Prophet came to bear a great resemblance to the Prophet Jonah.
Jonah is a Prophet who has been mentioned in six different places in the Quran. In 37:140 he has been spoken of as a heavenly Messenger; in 6:87 and 4:164 he has been reckoned among the Prophets of God; in 21:88 and 68:49 he has been called ذوالنون and صاحب الحوت (i.e. "he of the fish" or "the man of the fish"), in allusion to the incident of the fish. Reference has also been made to him in the words of the Holy Prophet who is reported to have said on one occasion, "Do not declare me to be better than Jonah, son of Amittai" (Muslim). The saying does not mean that the Holy Prophet was not superior to the Prophet Jonah, for he uttered these words before he had been informed by God of his superior spiritual rank. Later on, however, he himself said انا سید ولد آدم i.e. "I am the chief of the children of Adam," meaning thereby that he was the best of all mankind and the Head of the human race (Tirmidhi, ch. on al-Manaqib).
The above saying of the Holy Prophet can also be explained in another way, which has a particular bearing on the verse under comment. The superiority referred to in this saying may not mean superiority in all respects but superiority in one respect only, viz. that all the people of Jonah finally believed in him––a distinction which till then was not shared by any other Prophet. Hence the Holy Prophet hesitated to ascribe unqualified superiority to himself over Jonah until he had seen the end of his people. But subsequent events conferred this distinction on him also, as, like the people of Jonah, all his people too finally believed in him.
In the Bible, Jonah is spoken of as an Israelite Prophet (2 Kings 14:25), who was bidden to go to Nineveh and "cry" against it. But fearing that the Ninevites may repent, he fled to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord. The Quran differs from the Bible on these points. The Prophets of God are, according to the Quran, incapable of disobeying Him in the way in which Jonah is represented to have done in the Bible. They are held out, in the Quran, as models whose example other people should follow (4:65 & 6:91). Disobedience to God is therefore the last thing of which a Prophet is capable. Again, it appears from the Quran that Jonah was sent to his own people, i.e. to a people to whom he belonged. According to Jewish tradition, however, he was a Jew but was sent to the people of Nineveh, which was the capital of Ashur. So in the light of the Quranic version Jonah was either not an Israelite or he was sent not to Nineveh but to a section of his own people. Biblical scholars themselves are not agreed as to Jonah’s being an Israelite. In the two points on which the Quran differs from the Bible, reason favours the Quran.
e
37:149.
604
在 «古兰经» 中有六处提及尤努司 (4:164; 6:87; 21:88; 37:140和68:49)。圣经中谈到他是一位以色列先知 (《列王下》14:25), 他受嘱去亚述 (Ashur) 的首都尼尼微 (Nineveh) 并对着它 “哭喊”。据 «古兰经» 记载, 他是被派往他的民族中去的。他既不是以色列人, 也没有被派去尼尼微, 而是派往他自己民族的一部分人中间去的。研究圣经的学者也不同意尤努司是一个以色列人。
c
37:149.
1370
Important Words:
یونس (Jonah), the name of a Prophet who lived in the 9th Century B. C., is supposed to be derived from انس. They say انس به i.e. he was or became sociable, amiable or friendly with him; he was or became cheerful, gay or gladdened by his presence or company (Lane). See also Commentary below.
Commentary:
For those who are accustomed to pondering over the deep meanings of the Quran, this verse possesses remarkable evidence of the greatness of God’s mercy. The almost pathetic words breathe a strong desire that the world should follow Divine guidance. The verse expresses the deepest regret at the disbelief of the people by asking why there had not been other people who, like the people of Jonah, should have believed in the truth and escaped Divine punishment. The case of the people of Jonah possesses a strong similarity with that of the people of the Holy Prophet. The people of Nineveh first bitterly opposed Jonah so much so that they were threatened with Divine punishment and Jonah prophesied their early destruction; but later they repented and were saved. In the same way, the people of Mecca opposed the Holy Prophet bitterly and persistently, but at the Fall of Mecca they submitted to him and were consequently saved from Divine punishment. Later, all of them believed in his mission and became the inheritors of Divine grace. In this way the Holy Prophet came to bear a great resemblance to the Prophet Jonah.
Jonah is a Prophet who has been mentioned in six different places in the Quran. In 37:140 he has been spoken of as a heavenly Messenger; in 6:87 and 4:164 he has been reckoned among the Prophets of God; in 21:88 and 68:49 he has been called ذوالنون and صاحب الحوت (i.e. "he of the fish" or "the man of the fish"), in allusion to the incident of the fish. Reference has also been made to him in the words of the Holy Prophet who is reported to have said on one occasion, "Do not declare me to be better than Jonah, son of Amittai" (Muslim). The saying does not mean that the Holy Prophet was not superior to the Prophet Jonah, for he uttered these words before he had been informed by God of his superior spiritual rank. Later on, however, he himself said انا سید ولد آدم i.e. "I am the chief of the children of Adam," meaning thereby that he was the best of all mankind and the Head of the human race (Tirmidhi, ch. on al-Manaqib).
The above saying of the Holy Prophet can also be explained in another way, which has a particular bearing on the verse under comment. The superiority referred to in this saying may not mean superiority in all respects but superiority in one respect only, viz. that all the people of Jonah finally believed in him––a distinction which till then was not shared by any other Prophet. Hence the Holy Prophet hesitated to ascribe unqualified superiority to himself over Jonah until he had seen the end of his people. But subsequent events conferred this distinction on him also, as, like the people of Jonah, all his people too finally believed in him.
In the Bible, Jonah is spoken of as an Israelite Prophet (2 Kings 14:25), who was bidden to go to Nineveh and "cry" against it. But fearing that the Ninevites may repent, he fled to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord. The Quran differs from the Bible on these points. The Prophets of God are, according to the Quran, incapable of disobeying Him in the way in which Jonah is represented to have done in the Bible. They are held out, in the Quran, as models whose example other people should follow (4:65 & 6:91). Disobedience to God is therefore the last thing of which a Prophet is capable. Again, it appears from the Quran that Jonah was sent to his own people, i.e. to a people to whom he belonged. According to Jewish tradition, however, he was a Jew but was sent to the people of Nineveh, which was the capital of Ashur. So in the light of the Quranic version Jonah was either not an Israelite or he was sent not to Nineveh but to a section of his own people. Biblical scholars themselves are not agreed as to Jonah’s being an Israelite. In the two points on which the Quran differs from the Bible, reason favours the Quran.
d
37:149.
1287A
People of the town.
1288
Jonah has been mentioned at six different places in the Qur’an (4:164; 6:87; 21:88; 37:140 & 68:49). In the Bible he is spoken of as an Israelite Prophet (2 Kings, 14: 25) who was bidden to go to Nineveh, the capital of Ashur and 'cry' against it. According to the Qur’an, however, he was sent to his own people. He was either not an Israelite or he was sent not to Nineveh but to a section of his own people. Biblical scholars themselves are not agreed as to Jonah’s being an Israelite.
وَضَرَبَ ٱللَّهُ مَثَلًا قَرْيَةً كَانَتْ ءَامِنَةً مُّطْمَئِنَّةً يَأْتِيهَا رِزْقُهَا رَغَدًا مِّن كُلِّ مَكَانٍ فَكَفَرَتْ بِأَنْعُمِ ٱللَّهِ فَأَذَٰقَهَا ٱللَّهُ لِبَاسَ ٱلْجُوعِ وَٱلْخَوْفِ بِمَا كَانُوا۟ يَصْنَعُونَ
34:16, 17.
اس جگہ بستی سے مراد مکہ مکرمہ ہے۔ قرآن کریم میں ماضی کا لفظ ہے۔ مگر بعض دفعہ یقین پر دلالت کرنے کے لئے ماضی کا لفظ حال کی جگہ استعمال کر دیا جاتا ہے۔ اسی طرح یہاں ہوا ہے۔
قرآن مجید میں لفظ اَذَاقَ کا ہے جس کے معنے چکھانے کے ہیں۔ مگر عربی کے محاورہ میں لباس کے لئے بھی بعض دفعہ کھانے کا لفظ آجاتا ہے چنانچہ مشہور شعر ہے۔قَالُوا اقْتَرِحْ شَیْئًا نجِدْ لَـکَ طَبْخَہٗ۔ قُلْتُ اطْبَخُوْا لِیْ جُبَّۃً وَّ قَمِیْصًاانہوں نے کہا کہ کسی چیز کی خواہش کرو جس کو ہم پکار کر پیش کریں۔ میں نے کہا کہ ُجبّہ اور قمیص مجھے پکا کر دو۔ اِسی محاورہ کے مطابق ہم نے ترجمہ کیا ہے تا چکھانے کا مفہوم بھی نکل آئے اور لباس کا لفظ بھی قائم رہے۔ (تفصیل کے لئے دیکھئے تفسیر کبیر جلد۴ صفحہ ۲۵۸)
34:16, 17.
The "city" referred to in this verse is Mecca.
The dreadful famine which held Mecca in its grip for seven long years. See {2694}.
Fear of war in which the Meccans were involved with Muslims and were defeated. They lived in a state of extreme fear as if fear of war had quite covered them. In Arabic idiom the word Dhaqa (tasting) sometimes is used for Libas (dress). There is a well-known Arabic verse:—Qalu Iqtarih Shai’an Najid Laka Tabkha-hu. Qulto Itbakhu Li Jubbatan wa Qamisa, i.e. they said what would you desire us to cook for you. I said, 'Cook for me a long coat and a shirt.'
34:16-17.
Commentary:
The "city" referred to in this verse is Mecca. It warns Meccans of the great punishment which will befall them if they do not accept the Holy Prophet and do not give up their iniquitous ways. The sanctity of Mecca would not save them from the impending punishment. They are also told that they are leading a life of plenty and security, but the time is fast approaching when they will be visited with a terrible famine or, to quote a prayer of the Holy Prophet, with "years of famine like the famine of the days of Joseph", and instead of security they will taste the horrors of war. Both these calamities befell the Meccans after the Hijrah. They were smitten with constant fear. Fear is the inevitable result of war and they became involved in continuous fighting. And such a dreadful famine overtook Mecca that Abu Sufyan, the archenemy of Islam, came to Medina to beg the Prophet to pray to God that He might have mercy on them and save them from the famine. The words, which clothed it like a garment, mean that God afflicted Mecca with fear and hunger to such an extent that these calamities altogether covered it and stuck to it like a garment. Marks of fear and hunger became clearly visible on the faces of Meccans. Famine made them lean and thin and continuous fear overwhelmed them and completely unnerved them.
b
34:16, 17.
1
اس جگہ بستی سے مراد مکہ مکرمہ ہے۔ قرآن کریم میں ماضی کا لفظ ہے۔ مگر بعض دفعہ یقین پر دلالت کرنے کے لئے ماضی کا لفظ حال کی جگہ استعمال کر دیا جاتا ہے۔ اسی طرح یہاں ہوا ہے۔
2
قرآن مجید میں لفظ اَذَاقَ کا ہے جس کے معنے چکھانے کے ہیں۔ مگر عربی کے محاورہ میں لباس کے لئے بھی بعض دفعہ کھانے کا لفظ آجاتا ہے چنانچہ مشہور شعر ہے۔قَالُوا اقْتَرِحْ شَیْئًا نجِدْ لَـکَ طَبْخَہٗ۔ قُلْتُ اطْبَخُوْا لِیْ جُبَّۃً وَّ قَمِیْصًاانہوں نے کہا کہ کسی چیز کی خواہش کرو جس کو ہم پکار کر پیش کریں۔ میں نے کہا کہ ُجبّہ اور قمیص مجھے پکا کر دو۔ اِسی محاورہ کے مطابق ہم نے ترجمہ کیا ہے تا چکھانے کا مفہوم بھی نکل آئے اور لباس کا لفظ بھی قائم رہے۔ (تفصیل کے لئے دیکھئے تفسیر کبیر جلد۴ صفحہ ۲۵۸)
b
34:16-17.
1913
Commentary:
The "city" referred to in this verse is Mecca. It warns Meccans of the great punishment which will befall them if they do not accept the Holy Prophet and do not give up their iniquitous ways. The sanctity of Mecca would not save them from the impending punishment. They are also told that they are leading a life of plenty and security, but the time is fast approaching when they will be visited with a terrible famine or, to quote a prayer of the Holy Prophet, with "years of famine like the famine of the days of Joseph", and instead of security they will taste the horrors of war. Both these calamities befell the Meccans after the Hijrah. They were smitten with constant fear. Fear is the inevitable result of war and they became involved in continuous fighting. And such a dreadful famine overtook Mecca that Abu Sufyan, the archenemy of Islam, came to Medina to beg the Prophet to pray to God that He might have mercy on them and save them from the famine. The words, which clothed it like a garment, mean that God afflicted Mecca with fear and hunger to such an extent that these calamities altogether covered it and stuck to it like a garment. Marks of fear and hunger became clearly visible on the faces of Meccans. Famine made them lean and thin and continuous fear overwhelmed them and completely unnerved them.
a
34:16, 17.
1581
The "city" referred to in this verse is Mecca.
1582
The dreadful famine which held Mecca in its grip for seven long years. See {2694}.
1583
Fear of war in which the Meccans were involved with Muslims and were defeated. They lived in a state of extreme fear as if fear of war had quite covered them. In Arabic idiom the word Dhaqa (tasting) sometimes is used for Libas (dress). There is a well-known Arabic verse:—Qalu Iqtarih Shai’an Najid Laka Tabkha-hu. Qulto Itbakhu Li Jubbatan wa Qamisa, i.e. they said what would you desire us to cook for you. I said, 'Cook for me a long coat and a shirt.'
وَكَمْ قَصَمْنَا مِن قَرْيَةٍ كَانَتْ ظَالِمَةً وَأَنشَأْنَا بَعْدَهَا قَوْمًا ءَاخَرِينَ
7:5; 22:46; 28:59; 50:37; 65:9.
7:5; 22:46; 28:59; 50:37; 65:9.
7:5; 22:46; 28:59; 50:37; 65:9.
Important Words:
قصمنا (We utterly destroyed) is derived from قصم. They say قصم الشیء i.e. he broke the thing into pieces; he broke it completely, utterly.قصم الرجل means, he destroyed the man. قصم اللّٰه ظھر الظالم means, God afflicted the transgressor with calamity and broke his back (Aqrab).
قریة meaning a township signifies its inhabitants. See also 12:83.
Commentary:
ظلم meaning the improper use of God-given powers and faculties, the verse implies that all transgressions and sins flow from their misuse.
c
7:5; 22:46; 28:59; 50:37; 65:9.
a
7:5; 22:46; 28:59; 50:37; 65:9.
2353
Important Words:
قصمنا (We utterly destroyed) is derived from قصم. They say قصم الشیء i.e. he broke the thing into pieces; he broke it completely, utterly.قصم الرجل means, he destroyed the man. قصم اللّٰه ظھر الظالم means, God afflicted the transgressor with calamity and broke his back (Aqrab).
قریة meaning a township signifies its inhabitants. See also 12:83.
Commentary:
ظلم meaning the improper use of God-given powers and faculties, the verse implies that all transgressions and sins flow from their misuse.
b
7:5; 22:46; 28:59; 50:37; 65:9.