Topic: Has No Progeny, Wife
View Aspects
وَقَالُوا۟ ٱتَّخَذَ ٱللَّهُ وَلَدًا ۗ سُبْحَٰنَهُۥ ۖ بَل لَّهُۥ مَا فِى ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ ۖ كُلٌّ لَّهُۥ قَٰنِتُونَ
وَلَدٌ کے معنے بیٹے کے بھی ہیں اور بیٹی کے بھی ہیں اور ایک کے لئے بھی اور دو کے لئے بھی اور زیادہ کے لئے بھی یہ لفظ بولا جاتا ہے۔ یہود اور نصاریٰ کے عقیدہ کو مدِّنظر رکھتے ہوئے اس جگہ ایک بیٹے کے معنے کیے گئے ہیں۔ ورنہ آیت کے یہ معنے ہیں کہ نہ اس کا بیٹا ہے نہ بیٹی۔ نہ ایک بیٹا بیٹی‘ نہ بہت سے بیٹے بیٹیاں۔
سُبْحٰنَ اسم مصدر ہے اور ترکیب میں مفعول مطلق کے طور پر استعمال ہوا ہے۔ اس لئے موقعہ کے لحاظ سے اس کا فعل محذوف قرار دیا جائے گا۔ کسی جگہ ’’میں اس کی پاکیزگی بیان کرتا ہوں‘‘ کے الفاظ محذوف ہوں گے اور کسی جگہ ’’اس کی پاکیزگی بیان کرو‘‘ اور کسی جگہ ’’اس کی پاکیزگی بیان کی جاتی ہے‘‘ کے الفاظ۔ اس جگہ آخری معنوں کو مدنظر رکھ کر ’’پاک ہے‘‘ ترجمہ کیا گیا ہے۔
30:27.
4:172; 6:101-102; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:36, 89-90; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82.
The words "son of God" metaphorically used in Jewish religious literature in the sense of "a beloved servant of God" or "a Prophet" subsequently came to bear a literal connotation (Luke 20: 36; Matt. 5: 9, 45, 48; Deut. 14: 1; Exod. 4: 22; Gal. 3: 26; etc.). If God has a son, He must be subject to sexual desire and need a wife and be divisible, because the son is a part of the father’s body. Again, He must be subject to death because the procreation of species, which attribution of a son to God implies, is the characteristic of perishable things. Islam repudiates all such ideas; for according to it God is Holy and free from all defects.
4:172; 6:101, 102; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:36, 89, 90; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82.
30:27.
Important Words:
قانتون (obedient) which is the plural of قانت is derived from قنت which means: (1) he obeyed; (2) he showed humility and submissiveness; (3) he remained silent, refraining from speech; and (4) he stood praying or he stood long in Prayer (Aqrab).
Commentary:
The verse speaks of the Christians with whom the Muslims were to come in contact in their great march as the torchbearers of Islam. Failing to get converts from among the Jews, the early Christians turned their attention to the Romans and the Greeks but succumbed to their philosophies and freely borrowed ideas from them, incorporating them into their own beliefs and doctrines. As a result of this, Jesus began to be represented as the Son of God and the dogma of Trinity became the basic doctrine of the Christian Faith. The expression "son of God" metaphorically used in Jewish religious literature in the sense of "a beloved servant of God" or "a Prophet" came to bear a literal connotation (Luke 20: 36; Matt. 5:9, 45, 48; Deut. 14:1; Exod. 4:22; Gal. 3:26; Wisd. 2:18, etc.). The Quran has exploded this doctrine and has, in the verse under comment, given several arguments to expose its falsity: (1) If God has a son, He must be subject to sexual desires and need a wife and be divisible, because the son is a part of the father’s body. Again, He must be subject to death because the procreation of species, which the attribution of a son to God implies, is the characteristic of perishable things. But Islam repudiates all such ideas; for according to it, God is Holy and free from all defects and weaknesses. (2) One sometimes needs a son or a successor to extend one’s dominion and bring into subjugation such territories as do not acknowledge one’s rule. But God has no such need; for everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him. (3) A son or helper is sometimes required to keep under control the turbulent or far-flung parts of one’s kingdom; but God has no such requirement, for "all are obedient to Him." Thus, from whatever angle we may view the question, God is proved to need no son, no helper or assistant to help Him in the work of controlling and managing the universe. In fact, it is blasphemy to say so. The argument is further elaborated in the next verse.
f
4:172; 6:101-102; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:36, 89-90; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82.
g
30:27.
1
وَلَدٌ کے معنے بیٹے کے بھی ہیں اور بیٹی کے بھی ہیں اور ایک کے لئے بھی اور دو کے لئے بھی اور زیادہ کے لئے بھی یہ لفظ بولا جاتا ہے۔ یہود اور نصاریٰ کے عقیدہ کو مدِّنظر رکھتے ہوئے اس جگہ ایک بیٹے کے معنے کیے گئے ہیں۔ ورنہ آیت کے یہ معنے ہیں کہ نہ اس کا بیٹا ہے نہ بیٹی۔ نہ ایک بیٹا بیٹی‘ نہ بہت سے بیٹے بیٹیاں۔
2
سُبْحٰنَ اسم مصدر ہے اور ترکیب میں مفعول مطلق کے طور پر استعمال ہوا ہے۔ اس لئے موقعہ کے لحاظ سے اس کا فعل محذوف قرار دیا جائے گا۔ کسی جگہ ’’میں اس کی پاکیزگی بیان کرتا ہوں‘‘ کے الفاظ محذوف ہوں گے اور کسی جگہ ’’اس کی پاکیزگی بیان کرو‘‘ اور کسی جگہ ’’اس کی پاکیزگی بیان کی جاتی ہے‘‘ کے الفاظ۔ اس جگہ آخری معنوں کو مدنظر رکھ کر ’’پاک ہے‘‘ ترجمہ کیا گیا ہے۔
a
4:172; 6:101, 102; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:36, 89, 90; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82.
b
30:27.
123
Important Words:
قانتون (obedient) which is the plural of قانت is derived from قنت which means: (1) he obeyed; (2) he showed humility and submissiveness; (3) he remained silent, refraining from speech; and (4) he stood praying or he stood long in Prayer (Aqrab).
Commentary:
The verse speaks of the Christians with whom the Muslims were to come in contact in their great march as the torchbearers of Islam. Failing to get converts from among the Jews, the early Christians turned their attention to the Romans and the Greeks but succumbed to their philosophies and freely borrowed ideas from them, incorporating them into their own beliefs and doctrines. As a result of this, Jesus began to be represented as the Son of God and the dogma of Trinity became the basic doctrine of the Christian Faith. The expression "son of God" metaphorically used in Jewish religious literature in the sense of "a beloved servant of God" or "a Prophet" came to bear a literal connotation (Luke 20: 36; Matt. 5:9, 45, 48; Deut. 14:1; Exod. 4:22; Gal. 3:26; Wisd. 2:18, etc.). The Quran has exploded this doctrine and has, in the verse under comment, given several arguments to expose its falsity: (1) If God has a son, He must be subject to sexual desires and need a wife and be divisible, because the son is a part of the father’s body. Again, He must be subject to death because the procreation of species, which the attribution of a son to God implies, is the characteristic of perishable things. But Islam repudiates all such ideas; for according to it, God is Holy and free from all defects and weaknesses. (2) One sometimes needs a son or a successor to extend one’s dominion and bring into subjugation such territories as do not acknowledge one’s rule. But God has no such need; for everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him. (3) A son or helper is sometimes required to keep under control the turbulent or far-flung parts of one’s kingdom; but God has no such requirement, for "all are obedient to Him." Thus, from whatever angle we may view the question, God is proved to need no son, no helper or assistant to help Him in the work of controlling and managing the universe. In fact, it is blasphemy to say so. The argument is further elaborated in the next verse.
a
30:27.
c
4:172; 6:101-102; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:36, 89-90; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82.
139
The words "son of God" metaphorically used in Jewish religious literature in the sense of "a beloved servant of God" or "a Prophet" subsequently came to bear a literal connotation (Luke 20: 36; Matt. 5: 9, 45, 48; Deut. 14: 1; Exod. 4: 22; Gal. 3: 26; etc.). If God has a son, He must be subject to sexual desire and need a wife and be divisible, because the son is a part of the father’s body. Again, He must be subject to death because the procreation of species, which attribution of a son to God implies, is the characteristic of perishable things. Islam repudiates all such ideas; for according to it God is Holy and free from all defects.
يَٰٓأَهْلَ ٱلْكِتَٰبِ لَا تَغْلُوا۟ فِى دِينِكُمْ وَلَا تَقُولُوا۟ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ إِلَّا ٱلْحَقَّ ۚ إِنَّمَا ٱلْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ٱبْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ ٱللَّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُۥٓ أَلْقَىٰهَآ إِلَىٰ مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ ۖ فَـَٔامِنُوا۟ بِٱللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِۦ ۖ وَلَا تَقُولُوا۟ ثَلَٰثَةٌ ۚ ٱنتَهُوا۟ خَيْرًا لَّكُمْ ۚ إِنَّمَا ٱللَّهُ إِلَٰهٌ وَٰحِدٌ ۖ سُبْحَٰنَهُۥٓ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُۥ وَلَدٌ ۘ لَّهُۥ مَا فِى ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَمَا فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ ۗ وَكَفَىٰ بِٱللَّهِ وَكِيلًا
5:78.
58:23.
5:74.
2:117; 10:69.
17:112; 18:5; 112:4, 5.
رُوْح (Ruh) 意指灵魂或精神;充满全身的呼吸, 如果离开了身体, 人就死亡; 安拉的启示或灵感; «古兰经»; 天使; 快乐和幸福; 恩惠 (Lane)。从以上谈及关于 Ruh 和 كَلِمَةْ (Kalimah) 的各种词义, 可以清楚地看出, 伊撒并没有特别的精神地位。这些用词和相似的用语在 «古兰经» 中用于其他先知, 也用于诸如玛尔彦等其他正直的人。(15:30; 32:10; 58:23) 它们用来洗刷犹太人对伊撒和玛尔彦的污蔑; 但并不说他们有特别的精神地位。
اس جگہ اہل کتاب سے مراد عیسائی ہیں نہ کہ یہودی۔ کیونکہ یہ عقائد (جن کا ردّ کیا گیا ہے) عیسائیوں کے ہیں۔
کَلِمَۃ کے معنے بشارت کے بھی ہوتے ہیں (فتح البیان)
5:74.
2:117; 10:69.
5:78.
58:23.
17:112; 18:5; 112:4, 5.
See {414}.
Ruh means, soul or spirit; the breath which pervades the whole body after the exit of which man dies; Divine revelation or inspiration; the Qur’an; angel; joy and happiness; mercy (Lane). From the above-mentioned different meanings of Ruh and Kalimah it becomes clear that no special spiritual status attaches to Jesus. These and similar expressions have been used in the Qur’an about other Prophets and also about other righteous persons such as Mary (15:30; 32:10; 58:23). They have been used to clear Jesus and Mary of the foul charges that were brought against them by the Jews and not to assign to them any special spiritual status.
5:78.
58:23.
5:74.
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 112:4, 5.
Important Words:
کلمته (His word). کلمة has been used in the Quran in different senses:(1) good tiding (e.g. 37:171, 172); (2) warning of coming punishment (e.g. 39:20); (3) a thing or being created without the instrumentality of any physical means, i.e. by the Will of God expressed by saying "Be" (e.g. 3:46-48); (4) a Sign (e.g. 18:110); (5) a message (e.g. 3:65); (6) a design; (e.g.9:40); (7) a word or saying (e.g. 23:101). See also 3:46.
روح (mercy) is derived from راح i.e. it became cool and pleasant; he was brisk, lively, active, prompt or quick. روح means, soul or spirit; the subtle substance in man which is the principle of vitality and of sensation and of voluntary motion; the breath which a man breathes and which pervades the whole body, after the exit of which he ceases to breathe; Divine revelation or inspiration; the Quran; angel; joy and happiness; mercy (Lane).
Commentary:
From the above-mentioned different meanings of روح and کلمة becomes clear that no higher spiritual status can be assigned to Jesus than to the other Prophets, on account of the word روح or کلمة having been used about him in the Quran. These and similar expressions have been used in the Quran about other Prophets also and even about persons who were not Prophets, such as Mary and the children of Adam (see 58:23; 15:30; 32:10; 21:92). It may be noted here that the words روح منه (mercy from Him) do not mean that the روح formed a part of the Divine Being but that it was only a gift of God. The expression منه (from Him) has been used in the Quran in this sense in 45:14.
In fact, the Quran uses these words about Jesus because foul charges were brought against him and his mother, Mary, by the Jews. These words are thus meant to exculpate and exonerate him from those charges and not to deify him. The Quranlends no support whatsoever to the absurd and unfounded view that Jesus was anything higher than a human being. He was human and of the earth, and yet a Messenger of God (e.g. 43:60; 19:31).
The verse refers to the three alleged persons of the Trinity, i.e. the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and condemns Trinity, declaring Allah alone to be the one true God, and the Messiah and the Holy Spirit as only the servants of God and in no way sharers in Godhead.
a
5:78.
b
58:23.
c
5:74.
d
2:117; 10:69.
e
17:112; 18:5; 112:4, 5.
365
رُوْح (Ruh) 意指灵魂或精神;充满全身的呼吸, 如果离开了身体, 人就死亡; 安拉的启示或灵感; «古兰经»; 天使; 快乐和幸福; 恩惠 (Lane)。从以上谈及关于 Ruh 和 كَلِمَةْ (Kalimah) 的各种词义, 可以清楚地看出, 伊撒并没有特别的精神地位。这些用词和相似的用语在 «古兰经» 中用于其他先知, 也用于诸如玛尔彦等其他正直的人。(15:30; 32:10; 58:23) 它们用来洗刷犹太人对伊撒和玛尔彦的污蔑; 但并不说他们有特别的精神地位。
1
اس جگہ اہل کتاب سے مراد عیسائی ہیں نہ کہ یہودی۔ کیونکہ یہ عقائد (جن کا ردّ کیا گیا ہے) عیسائیوں کے ہیں۔
2
کَلِمَۃ کے معنے بشارت کے بھی ہوتے ہیں (فتح البیان)
a
5:78.
b
58:23.
c
5:74.
d
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 112:4, 5.
635
Important Words:
کلمته (His word). کلمة has been used in the Quran in different senses:(1) good tiding (e.g. 37:171, 172); (2) warning of coming punishment (e.g. 39:20); (3) a thing or being created without the instrumentality of any physical means, i.e. by the Will of God expressed by saying "Be" (e.g. 3:46-48); (4) a Sign (e.g. 18:110); (5) a message (e.g. 3:65); (6) a design; (e.g.9:40); (7) a word or saying (e.g. 23:101). See also 3:46.
روح (mercy) is derived from راح i.e. it became cool and pleasant; he was brisk, lively, active, prompt or quick. روح means, soul or spirit; the subtle substance in man which is the principle of vitality and of sensation and of voluntary motion; the breath which a man breathes and which pervades the whole body, after the exit of which he ceases to breathe; Divine revelation or inspiration; the Quran; angel; joy and happiness; mercy (Lane).
Commentary:
From the above-mentioned different meanings of روح and کلمة becomes clear that no higher spiritual status can be assigned to Jesus than to the other Prophets, on account of the word روح or کلمة having been used about him in the Quran. These and similar expressions have been used in the Quran about other Prophets also and even about persons who were not Prophets, such as Mary and the children of Adam (see 58:23; 15:30; 32:10; 21:92). It may be noted here that the words روح منه (mercy from Him) do not mean that the روح formed a part of the Divine Being but that it was only a gift of God. The expression منه (from Him) has been used in the Quran in this sense in 45:14.
In fact, the Quran uses these words about Jesus because foul charges were brought against him and his mother, Mary, by the Jews. These words are thus meant to exculpate and exonerate him from those charges and not to deify him. The Quranlends no support whatsoever to the absurd and unfounded view that Jesus was anything higher than a human being. He was human and of the earth, and yet a Messenger of God (e.g. 43:60; 19:31).
The verse refers to the three alleged persons of the Trinity, i.e. the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and condemns Trinity, declaring Allah alone to be the one true God, and the Messiah and the Holy Spirit as only the servants of God and in no way sharers in Godhead.
a
5:74.
b
2:117; 10:69.
c
5:78.
d
58:23.
e
17:112; 18:5; 112:4, 5.
711
See {414}.
712
Ruh means, soul or spirit; the breath which pervades the whole body after the exit of which man dies; Divine revelation or inspiration; the Qur’an; angel; joy and happiness; mercy (Lane). From the above-mentioned different meanings of Ruh and Kalimah it becomes clear that no special spiritual status attaches to Jesus. These and similar expressions have been used in the Qur’an about other Prophets and also about other righteous persons such as Mary (15:30; 32:10; 58:23). They have been used to clear Jesus and Mary of the foul charges that were brought against them by the Jews and not to assign to them any special spiritual status.
وَجَعَلُوا۟ لِلَّهِ شُرَكَآءَ ٱلْجِنَّ وَخَلَقَهُمْ ۖ وَخَرَقُوا۟ لَهُۥ بَنِينَ وَبَنَٰتٍۭ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ ۚ سُبْحَٰنَهُۥ وَتَعَٰلَىٰ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ
2:117; 9:31; 10:19.
Jinn are such beings as remain hidden or aloof from the common people. The verse signifies that man stumbles when he rejects Divine revelation and follows his own judgment and reason and associates the jinn and the angels as co-partners with God and attributes sons and daughters to Him.
2:117; 9:31; 10:19.
Important Words:
الجن (the jinn) is derived from the verb جن i.e. he covered up or concealed. The word here signifies such beings as remain aloof from the people, as if remaining concealed, e.g. kings and other potentates. In its wider significance the word extends to angels and other hidden creatures. See also 2:26; 6:77 & 6:129.
خرقوا (they falsely ascribe) is derived from خرق. They say خرقه i.e. he made a hole in it, or he cut it or tore it. خرق الارضmeans, he traversed or crossed the land by journeying so as to reach the furthest part thereof.
خرق الکذب means, he forged the lie. Sometimes the word خرق even when used without a qualifying word means, he forged a lie, or he lied, or he falsely ascribed something to somebody (Taj).
Commentary:
This verse draws attention to the way in which man stumbles when he rejects divine revelation and follows his own judgement and reason. It calls upon the reader to mark the difference between divine and man-made teachings. Men, unguided by divine light and following their own reason, have strayed so far away from the path of rectitude that some suppose the jinn (kings, etc.) to be co-partners with God, as did the Egyptians in the time of Moses; while others attribute sons and daughters to Him, as do the Christians, who have deified Jesus and believe him to be the son of God. A comparison of these man-made teachings with those revealed by God definitely proves the need of Divine revelation.
a
2:117; 9:31; 10:19.
444
جِنّ (Jinn, 大人物) 是一般人看不见, 或远离他们的这样一种人。这节经文意指, 人类在拒绝安拉的启示并听从他们自己的判断和推理把大人物和天使连系起来作为安拉的合伙者并认为安拉有儿女的时候, 他们就会走入邪道。
a
2:117; 9:31; 10:19.
843
Important Words:
الجن (the jinn) is derived from the verb جن i.e. he covered up or concealed. The word here signifies such beings as remain aloof from the people, as if remaining concealed, e.g. kings and other potentates. In its wider significance the word extends to angels and other hidden creatures. See also 2:26; 6:77 & 6:129.
خرقوا (they falsely ascribe) is derived from خرق. They say خرقه i.e. he made a hole in it, or he cut it or tore it. خرق الارضmeans, he traversed or crossed the land by journeying so as to reach the furthest part thereof.
خرق الکذب means, he forged the lie. Sometimes the word خرق even when used without a qualifying word means, he forged a lie, or he lied, or he falsely ascribed something to somebody (Taj).
Commentary:
This verse draws attention to the way in which man stumbles when he rejects divine revelation and follows his own judgement and reason. It calls upon the reader to mark the difference between divine and man-made teachings. Men, unguided by divine light and following their own reason, have strayed so far away from the path of rectitude that some suppose the jinn (kings, etc.) to be co-partners with God, as did the Egyptians in the time of Moses; while others attribute sons and daughters to Him, as do the Christians, who have deified Jesus and believe him to be the son of God. A comparison of these man-made teachings with those revealed by God definitely proves the need of Divine revelation.
a
2:117; 9:31; 10:19.
885
Jinn are such beings as remain hidden or aloof from the common people. The verse signifies that man stumbles when he rejects Divine revelation and follows his own judgment and reason and associates the jinn and the angels as co-partners with God and attributes sons and daughters to Him.
بَدِيعُ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ ۖ أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لَهُۥ وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ تَكُن لَّهُۥ صَٰحِبَةٌ ۖ وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَىْءٍ ۖ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَىْءٍ عَلِيمٌ
2:118.
The word Waladun, Wuldun or Waldun means, a child, a son, a daughter, or any young one; children; sons, daughters; or young ones; also offspring (Lane). One can have a son only when one has a wife. God has no spouse, so He cannot have a son. Moreover, as God is the Creator of everything and possesses perfect knowledge, He does not need a son to help Him or succeed Him.
2:118.
Important Words:
ولد (son) is from the verb ولد meaning, he or she begot or brought forth a child or a young one. The word ولد (waladun) or ولد (wuldun) or ولد (waldun) is very comprehensive in its meaning. It not only signifies male and female but is also used as singular or plural, extending even to remote offspring. Thus the word means, a child, a son, a daughter, or any young one; children, sons, daughters, or young ones; also offspring (Lane).
Commentary:
After making a reference to man-made teachings, the Quran proceeds to give Divine teachings.
There are only two ways by which one can have a son, either by a wife or by adoption. As for the first way, God has no spouse, so He cannot have a son. Christians call Jesus the son of God, but they do not call Mary the consort of God. If, however, Jesus was the son of God by adoption, then that does not entitle him to a higher spiritual status than other human beings, for any other man might as well have been adopted by God as His son. Again, as God is the Creator of everything and possesses perfect knowledge, He does not stand in need of a son.
b
2:118.
445
وَلَدٌ (Waladun), وُلْدٌ (Wuldun) 或 وَلْدٌ (Waldun) 这一单词的意思是: 孩子、儿子、女儿, 或任何一个幼小的人; 许多孩子、儿子、女儿; 或年轻的人们; 也指子孙、后裔 (Lane)。人只是在有了妻子后才能有儿子。安拉没有配偶, 因此他不可能有儿子。而且, 由於安拉是一切事物的创造主, 而且具有完美的知识, 他不需要儿子来帮助他或继承他。
a
2:118.
844
Important Words:
ولد (son) is from the verb ولد meaning, he or she begot or brought forth a child or a young one. The word ولد (waladun) or ولد (wuldun) or ولد (waldun) is very comprehensive in its meaning. It not only signifies male and female but is also used as singular or plural, extending even to remote offspring. Thus the word means, a child, a son, a daughter, or any young one; children, sons, daughters, or young ones; also offspring (Lane).
Commentary:
After making a reference to man-made teachings, the Quran proceeds to give Divine teachings.
There are only two ways by which one can have a son, either by a wife or by adoption. As for the first way, God has no spouse, so He cannot have a son. Christians call Jesus the son of God, but they do not call Mary the consort of God. If, however, Jesus was the son of God by adoption, then that does not entitle him to a higher spiritual status than other human beings, for any other man might as well have been adopted by God as His son. Again, as God is the Creator of everything and possesses perfect knowledge, He does not stand in need of a son.
b
2:118.
886
The word Waladun, Wuldun or Waldun means, a child, a son, a daughter, or any young one; children; sons, daughters; or young ones; also offspring (Lane). One can have a son only when one has a wife. God has no spouse, so He cannot have a son. Moreover, as God is the Creator of everything and possesses perfect knowledge, He does not need a son to help Him or succeed Him.
وَقَالَتِ ٱلْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ٱبْنُ ٱللَّهِ وَقَالَتِ ٱلنَّصَٰرَى ٱلْمَسِيحُ ٱبْنُ ٱللَّهِ ۖ ذَٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُم بِأَفْوَٰهِهِمْ ۖ يُضَٰهِـُٔونَ قَوْلَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا۟ مِن قَبْلُ ۚ قَٰتَلَهُمُ ٱللَّهُ ۚ أَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ
2:117; 5:18; 10:69.
عُزَيْر (‘Uzair) 即 Ezra (欧泽尔) 生活在伊撒降生前五世纪。他是塞雷阿 (Seraiah) (一个高贵祭司) 的后裔, 他自己也是祭司会的成员, 人家称他为欧泽尔大祭司。他是他那个时代最重要的显贵之一, 对犹太教的发展有深远影响。在以色列先知中, 他特别受尊敬。麦地那的犹太人和在哈德拉蒙特 (حَضَرْمَوْت, Hadarmaut) 的一个犹太教派相信他是安拉的儿子。拉比斯 (Rabbis) 把他的名字和几个重要的机构联系起来。里南 (Renan) 在他的 «以色列人民的历史» 一书的序言中评论说, 犹太教的正式创建时期可能只有从欧泽尔时代计算起。希伯来文学认为假如他们的经典不是已经由穆撒传达下来的话, 那么, 他可以称得起是这部经典的传达者。他和内赫米亚 (Nehemiah) 合作, 活到一百二十岁, 死在巴比伦尼亚 (Babylonia) (Jew. Enc. 和 Enc. Bib)。
2:117; 5:18; 10:69.
‘Uzair or Ezra lived in the fifth century B.C. He was a descendant of Seraiah, the high priest, and, being himself a member of the priestly order, was known as Ezra, the Priest. He was one of the most important personages of his day and exercised a far-reaching influence on the development of Judaism. He was especially honoured among the Prophets of Israel. The Jews of Medina and a Jewish sect in Hadramaut believed him to be the son of God. The Rabbis associate his name with several important institutions. Renan has remarked in the preface to his History of the People of Israel that the definite constitution of Judaism may be dated only from the time of Ezra. In Rabbinical literature he was considered worthy of being the vehicle of the Law, had it not been already given through Moses. He worked in collaboration with Nehemiah and died at the age of 120 in Babylonia (Jew. Enc. & Enc. Bib.).
2:117; 5:18; 10:69.
Important Words:
عزیر (‘Uzair or Ezra) may be taken to have been derived in Arabic from عزر. They say عزرہ i.e. he prevented him or forbade him; he taught him the obligatory statutes or ordinances of God; he aided or assisted him; he strengthened him; he treated him with reverence or honour (Lane). Ezra (a Hebrew name), perhaps abbreviated from Azariah, meaning "Yahwe (God) helps," was a descendant of Seraiah, the high priest, and being himself a member of the priestly order, was known also as Ezra the Priest. He was one of the most important personages of his day and had far-reaching influence on the development of Judaism. He was especially honoured among the Prophets of Israel. In fact, he marks the spring time in the national history of Judaism and is regarded and quoted as the type of person most competent and learned in the Law. The Rabbis associate his name with several important institutions. Renan has remarked in the preface to his History of the People of Israel that the definite constitution of Judaism may be dated only from the time of Ezra. In Rabbinical literature Ezra was considered worthy of being, the vehicle of the Law, had it not been given through Moses. According to tradition he died at the age of 120 in Babylonia. He worked in close collaboration with Nehemiah. Ezra lived in the 5th century B.C. (Jew. Enc. & Enc. Bib.).
یضاھئون (they imitate) is derived from ضاھی which is derived from ضھی. They say ضاھاہ or ضاھاہ i.e. he resembled or conformed with him or it; he imitated him; he was or became gentle, tender or courteous to him. The well-known saying of the Holy Prophet اشد الناس عذابا یوم القیامة الذین یضاھئون خلق اللّٰه means, "The most severely punished of mankind on the Day of Judgement will be those who imitate (by what they make) the creation of God," e.g. sculptors, etc. (Lane).
قاتلھم اللّٰه (Allah’s curse be on them). قاتل is from the root قتل. They say قتله i.e. he killed him; or he rendered him as one killed; or he attempted to kill him; or he cut off all connections with him. قاتله means, he fought or warred against him, قاتله اللّٰه means, may God curse him; or may He drive him from His mercy (Lisan & Aqrab), The expression also means, may God make war against him, which cannot result except in such a one being destroyed (Mufradat). See also 2:62.
Commentary:
After having dealt at some length with the idolatrous beliefs and practices of the pagans of Arabia, the Quran proceeds in this verse to deal with the polytheistic beliefs and practices of Jews and Christians. Those of the Jews who lived in Medina looked upon Ezra as the son of God. Similarly, a sect of Jews living at Hadramaut in the south of Arabia believed him to be the son of God. The remnants of this sect continued to linger till the end of the fourth century A.H. (Qastalani & Dawud, Zahiri). As this doctrine of the Jews, which appears to be sectional, was a later innovation and did not subsist long, present Jewish sources make no mention of it, but that does not affect the real situation. Elsewhere the Quran says that the Israelites were rather free in attributing sons to God (5:19).
This verse also shows that these blasphemous doctrines were not taught to Christians and Jews by their Prophets but were later borrowed by them from pagan sources. Incidentally, this claim of the Quran constitutes a proof of its Divine origin, because here it states a fact which was not known to the world even two centuries ago and has been only recently brought to light by modern research. A study of the origins of the Christian Faith has now established the fact that Jews and Christians borrowed their later doctrines from Babylonian and Roman pagan sources.
The words, Allah’s curse be on them, when spoken by man signify only an imprecation but, when spoken by God, they imply a prophecy of the destruction of the person or persons about whom they are uttered.
a
2:117; 5:18; 10:69.
564
عُزَيْر (‘Uzair) 即 Ezra (欧泽尔) 生活在伊撒降生前五世纪。他是塞雷阿 (Seraiah) (一个高贵祭司) 的后裔, 他自己也是祭司会的成员, 人家称他为欧泽尔大祭司。他是他那个时代最重要的显贵之一, 对犹太教的发展有深远影响。在以色列先知中, 他特别受尊敬。麦地那的犹太人和在哈德拉蒙特 (حَضَرْمَوْت, Hadarmaut) 的一个犹太教派相信他是安拉的儿子。拉比斯 (Rabbis) 把他的名字和几个重要的机构联系起来。里南 (Renan) 在他的 «以色列人民的历史» 一书的序言中评论说, 犹太教的正式创建时期可能只有从欧泽尔时代计算起。希伯来文学认为假如他们的经典不是已经由穆撒传达下来的话, 那么, 他可以称得起是这部经典的传达者。他和内赫米亚 (Nehemiah) 合作, 活到一百二十岁, 死在巴比伦尼亚 (Babylonia) (Jew. Enc. 和 Enc. Bib)。
a
2:117; 5:18; 10:69.
1190
Important Words:
عزیر (‘Uzair or Ezra) may be taken to have been derived in Arabic from عزر. They say عزرہ i.e. he prevented him or forbade him; he taught him the obligatory statutes or ordinances of God; he aided or assisted him; he strengthened him; he treated him with reverence or honour (Lane). Ezra (a Hebrew name), perhaps abbreviated from Azariah, meaning "Yahwe (God) helps," was a descendant of Seraiah, the high priest, and being himself a member of the priestly order, was known also as Ezra the Priest. He was one of the most important personages of his day and had far-reaching influence on the development of Judaism. He was especially honoured among the Prophets of Israel. In fact, he marks the spring time in the national history of Judaism and is regarded and quoted as the type of person most competent and learned in the Law. The Rabbis associate his name with several important institutions. Renan has remarked in the preface to his History of the People of Israel that the definite constitution of Judaism may be dated only from the time of Ezra. In Rabbinical literature Ezra was considered worthy of being, the vehicle of the Law, had it not been given through Moses. According to tradition he died at the age of 120 in Babylonia. He worked in close collaboration with Nehemiah. Ezra lived in the 5th century B.C. (Jew. Enc. & Enc. Bib.).
یضاھئون (they imitate) is derived from ضاھی which is derived from ضھی. They say ضاھاہ or ضاھاہ i.e. he resembled or conformed with him or it; he imitated him; he was or became gentle, tender or courteous to him. The well-known saying of the Holy Prophet اشد الناس عذابا یوم القیامة الذین یضاھئون خلق اللّٰه means, "The most severely punished of mankind on the Day of Judgement will be those who imitate (by what they make) the creation of God," e.g. sculptors, etc. (Lane).
قاتلھم اللّٰه (Allah’s curse be on them). قاتل is from the root قتل. They say قتله i.e. he killed him; or he rendered him as one killed; or he attempted to kill him; or he cut off all connections with him. قاتله means, he fought or warred against him, قاتله اللّٰه means, may God curse him; or may He drive him from His mercy (Lisan & Aqrab), The expression also means, may God make war against him, which cannot result except in such a one being destroyed (Mufradat). See also 2:62.
Commentary:
After having dealt at some length with the idolatrous beliefs and practices of the pagans of Arabia, the Quran proceeds in this verse to deal with the polytheistic beliefs and practices of Jews and Christians. Those of the Jews who lived in Medina looked upon Ezra as the son of God. Similarly, a sect of Jews living at Hadramaut in the south of Arabia believed him to be the son of God. The remnants of this sect continued to linger till the end of the fourth century A.H. (Qastalani & Dawud, Zahiri). As this doctrine of the Jews, which appears to be sectional, was a later innovation and did not subsist long, present Jewish sources make no mention of it, but that does not affect the real situation. Elsewhere the Quran says that the Israelites were rather free in attributing sons to God (5:19).
This verse also shows that these blasphemous doctrines were not taught to Christians and Jews by their Prophets but were later borrowed by them from pagan sources. Incidentally, this claim of the Quran constitutes a proof of its Divine origin, because here it states a fact which was not known to the world even two centuries ago and has been only recently brought to light by modern research. A study of the origins of the Christian Faith has now established the fact that Jews and Christians borrowed their later doctrines from Babylonian and Roman pagan sources.
The words, Allah’s curse be on them, when spoken by man signify only an imprecation but, when spoken by God, they imply a prophecy of the destruction of the person or persons about whom they are uttered.
b
2:117; 5:18; 10:69.
1176
‘Uzair or Ezra lived in the fifth century B.C. He was a descendant of Seraiah, the high priest, and, being himself a member of the priestly order, was known as Ezra, the Priest. He was one of the most important personages of his day and exercised a far-reaching influence on the development of Judaism. He was especially honoured among the Prophets of Israel. The Jews of Medina and a Jewish sect in Hadramaut believed him to be the son of God. The Rabbis associate his name with several important institutions. Renan has remarked in the preface to his History of the People of Israel that the definite constitution of Judaism may be dated only from the time of Ezra. In Rabbinical literature he was considered worthy of being the vehicle of the Law, had it not been already given through Moses. He worked in collaboration with Nehemiah and died at the age of 120 in Babylonia (Jew. Enc. & Enc. Bib.).
قَالُوا۟ ٱتَّخَذَ ٱللَّهُ وَلَدًا ۗ سُبْحَٰنَهُۥ ۖ هُوَ ٱلْغَنِىُّ ۖ لَهُۥ مَا فِى ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَمَا فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ ۚ إِنْ عِندَكُم مِّن سُلْطَٰنٍۭ بِهَٰذَآ ۚ أَتَقُولُونَ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ
2:117; 4:172; 9:31; 17:112; 18:5, 6.
یعنی مسلمان۔
2:117; 4:172; 9:31; 17:112; 18:5, 6.
(a) God is immune to the laws of decay and death and therefore requires no son to continue His work. (b) Being Self-Sufficient He needs no son to help Him in conducting the affairs of the universe. (c) The doctrine is based on no sound ground and does not go beyond mere idle philosophical surmises and conjectures. This is the significance of this verse.
2:117; 4:172; 9:31; 17:112; 18:5, 6.
Commentary:
In v. 67, it had been hinted that in the false doctrines of disbelievers lie hidden the seeds of their destruction. In the present verse, the Quran proceeds to refute the doctrine of the plurality of gods, the most heinous of all false beliefs, and of the various forms of this doctrine it selects the belief that God has a son. This doctrine differs from other known polytheistic dogmas in that, whereas in other forms of shirk, idolaters claim only that they can attain nearness to God through the instrumentality of their gods, by this doctrine a person is believed to be an actual partner in Godhead.
Four arguments have been given here in refutation of the doctrine that a person can be a Son of God. The first is contained in the words, Holy is He, which mean that God is free from all defects and imperfections. But the belief that God has a son presupposes the presence of carnal passions in Him as well as His being subject to the laws of decay and death, for only such beings or things are perpetuated in their progeny as are subject to decay and death. The earth, the sun and the moon, for instance, have no issue because they are above the familiar law of death and decay; but animals and plants wither and die. Therefore they produce their substitutes which take their place when they are gone. Thus the existence of the progeny of a thing presupposes its mortality.
The second argument is embodied in the words, He is Self-Sufficient, which mean that in His work of running the universe God does not need anybody’s help. Progeny, besides saving a person from extinction, helps him to carry on his work. But God being Self-Sufficient needs no helper in that respect either.
The third argument is contained in the sentence, To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. Sometimes one can make or originate a thing but lacks the power or ability to keep it in his possession or under his control and therefore needs assistance. But God does not need anybody’s help to keep the universe in His possession or under His control.
The fourth argument is implied in the expression, You have no authority for this, which signifies that the doctrine of the plurality of gods is based on no sound or solid ground. Its whole basis lies in the fancy and caprice of men. This fact alone constitutes an argument against this foolish doctrine. All efforts to find some real evidence in support of shirk, do not go beyond mere indulgence in idle philosophical discussion, and no real basis has so far been found for it.
The argument embodied in the words, Do you say against Allah what you know not?, is given in 13:34, in the words, Would you inform Him of what He does not know in the earth? The difference in the wording is due to the fact that in the verse under comment it is pointed out that shirk springs from the ignorance of man and is not based on any sound reasoning, while in 13:34 it is said that the doctrine of shirk involves the charge of ignorance on the part of God, for it means that He failed to know and make known the existence of gods and it was left to idolaters to disclose the godhead of their deities by the force of their own knowledge.
g
2:117; 4:172; 9:31; 17:112; 18:5, 6.
1
یعنی مسلمان۔
a
2:117; 4:172; 9:31; 17:112; 18:5, 6.
1344
Commentary:
In v. 67, it had been hinted that in the false doctrines of disbelievers lie hidden the seeds of their destruction. In the present verse, the Quran proceeds to refute the doctrine of the plurality of gods, the most heinous of all false beliefs, and of the various forms of this doctrine it selects the belief that God has a son. This doctrine differs from other known polytheistic dogmas in that, whereas in other forms of shirk, idolaters claim only that they can attain nearness to God through the instrumentality of their gods, by this doctrine a person is believed to be an actual partner in Godhead.
Four arguments have been given here in refutation of the doctrine that a person can be a Son of God. The first is contained in the words, Holy is He, which mean that God is free from all defects and imperfections. But the belief that God has a son presupposes the presence of carnal passions in Him as well as His being subject to the laws of decay and death, for only such beings or things are perpetuated in their progeny as are subject to decay and death. The earth, the sun and the moon, for instance, have no issue because they are above the familiar law of death and decay; but animals and plants wither and die. Therefore they produce their substitutes which take their place when they are gone. Thus the existence of the progeny of a thing presupposes its mortality.
The second argument is embodied in the words, He is Self-Sufficient, which mean that in His work of running the universe God does not need anybody’s help. Progeny, besides saving a person from extinction, helps him to carry on his work. But God being Self-Sufficient needs no helper in that respect either.
The third argument is contained in the sentence, To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. Sometimes one can make or originate a thing but lacks the power or ability to keep it in his possession or under his control and therefore needs assistance. But God does not need anybody’s help to keep the universe in His possession or under His control.
The fourth argument is implied in the expression, You have no authority for this, which signifies that the doctrine of the plurality of gods is based on no sound or solid ground. Its whole basis lies in the fancy and caprice of men. This fact alone constitutes an argument against this foolish doctrine. All efforts to find some real evidence in support of shirk, do not go beyond mere indulgence in idle philosophical discussion, and no real basis has so far been found for it.
The argument embodied in the words, Do you say against Allah what you know not?, is given in 13:34, in the words, Would you inform Him of what He does not know in the earth? The difference in the wording is due to the fact that in the verse under comment it is pointed out that shirk springs from the ignorance of man and is not based on any sound reasoning, while in 13:34 it is said that the doctrine of shirk involves the charge of ignorance on the part of God, for it means that He failed to know and make known the existence of gods and it was left to idolaters to disclose the godhead of their deities by the force of their own knowledge.
a
2:117; 4:172; 9:31; 17:112; 18:5, 6.
1277
(a) God is immune to the laws of decay and death and therefore requires no son to continue His work. (b) Being Self-Sufficient He needs no son to help Him in conducting the affairs of the universe. (c) The doctrine is based on no sound ground and does not go beyond mere idle philosophical surmises and conjectures. This is the significance of this verse.
وَيَجْعَلُونَ لِلَّهِ ٱلْبَنَٰتِ سُبْحَٰنَهُۥ ۙ وَلَهُم مَّا يَشْتَهُونَ
6:101; 37:153, 154; 43:17; 52:40; 53:22.
یعنی کفار کو۔
6:101; 37:153, 154; 43:17; 52:40; 53:22.
The verse does not imply that the offence of disbelievers lies in attributing to God daughters and not sons though the Qur’an has also strongly denounced the attribution of a son to God (19:91, 92). The verse only points to the folly of the disbelievers that they attribute daughters to God while they themselves feel humiliated at daughters being attributed to them.
6:101; 37:153-154; 43:17; 52:40; 53:22.
Commentary:
The verse does not imply that the offence of disbelievers lies in attributing to God daughters and not sons. In 19: 91, 92, it has been clearly mentioned how it displeases God when a son is attributed to Him. The present verse only points to the folly of disbelievers that they go against their own accepted principles. The rejection of truth makes them impervious to this patent fact that they attribute daughters to God while they themselves feel humiliated at daughters being attributed to them. This shows how helpless human intellect, unaided by Divinerevelation, is to understand even very easy and simple things, let alone difficult and complicated religious problems. A possible objection that the Quran wrongly assumes that polytheists regard daughters as a source of humiliation is answered in the next verse.
d
6:101; 37:153, 154; 43:17; 52:40; 53:22.
1
یعنی کفار کو۔
a
6:101; 37:153-154; 43:17; 52:40; 53:22.
1859
Commentary:
The verse does not imply that the offence of disbelievers lies in attributing to God daughters and not sons. In 19: 91, 92, it has been clearly mentioned how it displeases God when a son is attributed to Him. The present verse only points to the folly of disbelievers that they go against their own accepted principles. The rejection of truth makes them impervious to this patent fact that they attribute daughters to God while they themselves feel humiliated at daughters being attributed to them. This shows how helpless human intellect, unaided by Divinerevelation, is to understand even very easy and simple things, let alone difficult and complicated religious problems. A possible objection that the Quran wrongly assumes that polytheists regard daughters as a source of humiliation is answered in the next verse.
b
6:101; 37:153, 154; 43:17; 52:40; 53:22.
1552
The verse does not imply that the offence of disbelievers lies in attributing to God daughters and not sons though the Qur’an has also strongly denounced the attribution of a son to God (19:91, 92). The verse only points to the folly of the disbelievers that they attribute daughters to God while they themselves feel humiliated at daughters being attributed to them.
وَقُلِ ٱلْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ ٱلَّذِى لَمْ يَتَّخِذْ وَلَدًا وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُۥ شَرِيكٌ فِى ٱلْمُلْكِ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُۥ وَلِىٌّ مِّنَ ٱلذُّلِّ ۖ وَكَبِّرْهُ تَكْبِيرًۢا
18:5; 19:36, 93; 25:3; 72:4.
18:5; 19:36, 93; 25:3; 72:4.
18:5; 19:36, 93; 25:3; 72:4.
Commentary
This verse which is the last of the present Surah, contains an implied reference to the subject of اسراء (the Night Journey) mentioned in v. 2 of this chapter. It means to say that God would bring about the fulfilment of the promises implied in the Prophet’s Vision. The cause of Islam would triumph and idolatry would disappear from Arabia. This glorious triumph of Islam and the inglorious discomfiture of disbelief and idolatry would completely demolish the false doctrines of the Trinity and plurality of Godhead. The ultimate and complete defeat of these false doctrines, prophesied by an unknown and poor man of Mecca without means and power, at a time when there were no ostensible prospects of such a prophecy being fulfilled, would show that God Who had made this prophecy through His Prophet was the One True God Who had no son or partner.
e
18:5; 19:36, 93; 25:3; 72:4.
a
18:5; 19:36, 93; 25:3; 72:4.
2040
Commentary
This verse which is the last of the present Surah, contains an implied reference to the subject of اسراء (the Night Journey) mentioned in v. 2 of this chapter. It means to say that God would bring about the fulfilment of the promises implied in the Prophet’s Vision. The cause of Islam would triumph and idolatry would disappear from Arabia. This glorious triumph of Islam and the inglorious discomfiture of disbelief and idolatry would completely demolish the false doctrines of the Trinity and plurality of Godhead. The ultimate and complete defeat of these false doctrines, prophesied by an unknown and poor man of Mecca without means and power, at a time when there were no ostensible prospects of such a prophecy being fulfilled, would show that God Who had made this prophecy through His Prophet was the One True God Who had no son or partner.
d
18:5; 19:36, 93; 25:3; 72:4.
وَيُنذِرَ ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُوا۟ ٱتَّخَذَ ٱللَّهُ وَلَدًا
17:112; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 72:4.
17:112; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 72:4.
The Qur’an is first spoken of as 'giving warning,' next as 'giving glad tidings' (v. 3), and then again as 'giving warning' as in the present verse. Disbelievers have been warned twice and in between these two warnings the believers have been given glad tidings. This double warning interspersed with glad tidings for Muslims implied three prophecies: (a) the discomfiture and destruction of the Holy Prophet’s opponents in his own time, (b) the phenomenal rise of Muslims to power and glory, and, (c) after the departure of their glory, the punishment in store for the nations who say that 'Allah has taken unto Himself a son.'
17:112; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 72:4.
Commentary:
It is worthy of special note that the Quran is first spoken of as 'giving warning', next as 'giving glad tidings' (v. 3) and then again as 'giving warning' as in the present verse. Disbelievers have been warned twice and in between these two warnings the believers have been given glad tidings. This seems rather strange and the words appear to have been used haphazardly. But it is not so. They serve a very useful purpose. The two 'warnings' and the one 'glad tidings' point to three important periods of the history of Islam. The first 'warning' mentioned in v. 3 pertains to the disbelievers of Mecca and all those people in the time of the Holy Prophet who had rejected his Message and were punished for their rejection and opposition. The 'glad tidings' spoken of in the same verse applies to Muslims who after their enemies had been destroyed enjoyed Divine favours for a very long time and this fulfilled the Divine promise embodied in the words, "Wherein they shall abide forever." For long centuries Muslims ruled over a large part of the globe and enjoyed great power and prestige. The 'second warning' embodied in the present verse refers to Christian nations of "the latter days" and implies a prophecy that after Muslims had enjoyed power and dominion for a long time, their glory would depart and Christian nations would again come into their own and spread over the entire world and would prove as a bar sinister to the expansion of Islam. These present-day Christian nations of the west have been warned of a severe punishment that is in store for them in the words, that it may warn those Who say, Allah has taken unto Himself a son. Thus this giving of warnings twice and interspersing these two warnings with glad tidings for Muslims implied three great prophecies viz. (a) the discomfiture and destruction of the Holy Prophet’s opponents in his own time; (b) the phenomenal rise of Muslims to power and glory and, after the departure of Muslim glory, (c) the punishment that is in store for the nations who say that Allah has taken unto Himself a son. The signs of this Divine punishment are already becoming too manifest to be overlooked.
d
17:112; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 72:4.
a
17:112; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 72:4.
2045
Commentary:
It is worthy of special note that the Quran is first spoken of as 'giving warning', next as 'giving glad tidings' (v. 3) and then again as 'giving warning' as in the present verse. Disbelievers have been warned twice and in between these two warnings the believers have been given glad tidings. This seems rather strange and the words appear to have been used haphazardly. But it is not so. They serve a very useful purpose. The two 'warnings' and the one 'glad tidings' point to three important periods of the history of Islam. The first 'warning' mentioned in v. 3 pertains to the disbelievers of Mecca and all those people in the time of the Holy Prophet who had rejected his Message and were punished for their rejection and opposition. The 'glad tidings' spoken of in the same verse applies to Muslims who after their enemies had been destroyed enjoyed Divine favours for a very long time and this fulfilled the Divine promise embodied in the words, "Wherein they shall abide forever." For long centuries Muslims ruled over a large part of the globe and enjoyed great power and prestige. The 'second warning' embodied in the present verse refers to Christian nations of "the latter days" and implies a prophecy that after Muslims had enjoyed power and dominion for a long time, their glory would depart and Christian nations would again come into their own and spread over the entire world and would prove as a bar sinister to the expansion of Islam. These present-day Christian nations of the west have been warned of a severe punishment that is in store for them in the words, that it may warn those Who say, Allah has taken unto Himself a son. Thus this giving of warnings twice and interspersing these two warnings with glad tidings for Muslims implied three great prophecies viz. (a) the discomfiture and destruction of the Holy Prophet’s opponents in his own time; (b) the phenomenal rise of Muslims to power and glory and, after the departure of Muslim glory, (c) the punishment that is in store for the nations who say that Allah has taken unto Himself a son. The signs of this Divine punishment are already becoming too manifest to be overlooked.
d
17:112; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 72:4.
1663
The Qur’an is first spoken of as 'giving warning,' next as 'giving glad tidings' (v. 3), and then again as 'giving warning' as in the present verse. Disbelievers have been warned twice and in between these two warnings the believers have been given glad tidings. This double warning interspersed with glad tidings for Muslims implied three prophecies: (a) the discomfiture and destruction of the Holy Prophet’s opponents in his own time, (b) the phenomenal rise of Muslims to power and glory, and, (c) after the departure of their glory, the punishment in store for the nations who say that 'Allah has taken unto Himself a son.'
مَّا لَهُم بِهِۦ مِنْ عِلْمٍ وَلَا لِءَابَآئِهِمْ ۚ كَبُرَتْ كَلِمَةً تَخْرُجُ مِنْ أَفْوَٰهِهِمْ ۚ إِن يَقُولُونَ إِلَّا كَذِبًا
22:72; 40:43.
19:91-92.
Commentary:
The expression کبرت کلمة (grievous is the word) is really کبرت ھی کلمة which means that the saying of this word is very grievous, or that it is very grievous even to open the lips with this word and it is against reason and common sense to utter it. The verse constitutes a severe indictment of the doctrine that Jesus is the son of God. This doctrine is not only blasphemous but also revolting to human intellect. It is an insult to human understanding to say that a weak and helpless man who could not save himself from being hung on the cross was God or the Son of God. Misguided and erring leaders of the Christian Church fabricated a most heinous and blasphemous doctrine without even a modicum of sense or reason to support it. They were fully aware of the fact that the disciples of Jesus and early Christians were strict monotheists and yet they departed from their pristine Faith. The later Christians, however, had with them the excellent Islamic teaching about the Unity of God, but they did not benefit by it, nor by the monotheistic beliefs of their own forebears. Without rhyme or reason they ascribed Godhead to a weak human being.
The words, they speak naught but a lie, signify that Jesus never taught such a foolish doctrine but later Christians themselves invented it and they are to blame for it. In fact, even the canonical Gospels lend no support to this blasphemous doctrine. No doubt the Bible has used the epithet "son of God" about Jesus but so has it also done about several other persons. For instance in Exod. 4:22 we have, "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first born." See also Gen. 6:2, John 10:35, etc.
e
22:72; 40:43.
f
19:91, 92.
a
22:72; 40:43.
b
19:91-92.
2046
Commentary:
The expression کبرت کلمة (grievous is the word) is really کبرت ھی کلمة which means that the saying of this word is very grievous, or that it is very grievous even to open the lips with this word and it is against reason and common sense to utter it. The verse constitutes a severe indictment of the doctrine that Jesus is the son of God. This doctrine is not only blasphemous but also revolting to human intellect. It is an insult to human understanding to say that a weak and helpless man who could not save himself from being hung on the cross was God or the Son of God. Misguided and erring leaders of the Christian Church fabricated a most heinous and blasphemous doctrine without even a modicum of sense or reason to support it. They were fully aware of the fact that the disciples of Jesus and early Christians were strict monotheists and yet they departed from their pristine Faith. The later Christians, however, had with them the excellent Islamic teaching about the Unity of God, but they did not benefit by it, nor by the monotheistic beliefs of their own forebears. Without rhyme or reason they ascribed Godhead to a weak human being.
The words, they speak naught but a lie, signify that Jesus never taught such a foolish doctrine but later Christians themselves invented it and they are to blame for it. In fact, even the canonical Gospels lend no support to this blasphemous doctrine. No doubt the Bible has used the epithet "son of God" about Jesus but so has it also done about several other persons. For instance in Exod. 4:22 we have, "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first born." See also Gen. 6:2, John 10:35, etc.
a
19:91, 92.
e
22:72; 40:43.
مَا كَانَ لِلَّهِ أَن يَتَّخِذَ مِن وَلَدٍ ۖ سُبْحَٰنَهُۥٓ ۚ إِذَا قَضَىٰٓ أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُۥ كُن فَيَكُونُ
10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.
基督教徒相信, 伊撒是安拉的儿子。他们是根据 «圣经» 称他为 “安拉的儿子” 这一设想而产生这一信念的。可是 «圣经» 中也有称呼其他人为 “安拉的儿子” 的。伊撒在这方面并没有什么特殊之处, 因此他不过是像称呼那些其他人那样的一个安拉的儿子 («路加» 20:36; «耶利米亚书» 31:9; «马太» 6:9; «约翰» 8:41和 «以弗所书» 4:6)。
在阿拉伯语中, كُنْ (Kun) 这个单词, 除了可以向一样东西说以外, 还可以用 来表达一个深切感到的愿望。有一次远征中, 穆圣的一个非常勇敢而忠实的伙伴阿布•卡撒马 (اَبُوْخَيْثَمَة, Abu Khaithamah) 恰巧不在。穆圣深切地感觉到他没在身旁。在战斗中, 他看见一个人从远处骑着马飞驰而来, 他就喊道: كُنْ اَبَا خَيْثَمَة (Kun Aba Khaithamah), 也就是说, 但愿那是阿布•卡撒马; 瞧! 真的是阿布•卡撒马 (حَلْبِيَّة, Halbiyyah)。因此, كُنْ (Kun) 这一单词可以意示, 当安拉想要一件事或东西成为现实时, 它就成为现实; 或者, 当安拉表达这样一个愿望时, 它就具体地出现在面前。这一单词并不支持这样的看法, 说灵魂和物质是和安拉永远并存的或自古就有的。
10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.
Christians believe that Jesus was God’s son. They base this belief on the assumption that the Bible calls him "son of God." But in the Bible other persons have also been called or addressed as "sons of God." Jesus enjoys no special distinction in this respect and he is, therefore, no more a son of God than those persons who have also been addressed as such (Luke, 20: 36; Jer., 31: 9; Matt., 6: 9; John, 8: 41 & Ephes., 4: 6).
In the Arabic language the word Kun, besides being addressed to a thing, is also used to express a greatly felt desire. In an expedition the Holy Prophet’s very brave and loyal Companion, Abu Khaithamah happened to be absent. The Holy Prophet keenly felt his absence. When in the midst of the battle he saw from a great distance a rider coming to him at full speed, he exclaimed Kun Aba Khaithamah, i.e. would that it were Abu Khaithamah; and lo! it was really Abu Khaithamah (Halbiyyah). So the word Kun would signify that when God desires or intends a thing to come into being, it comes into being; or when God expresses such a desire it takes a concrete form. The word lends no support to the view that soul and matter are primeval or coeternal with God.
10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.
Important Words:
ماکان للّٰه (It does not befit the Majesty of Allah). They say ماکان له i.e. (1) it does not befit him; behove him; it is inconsistent with his dignity; it is not proper for him; (2) it is beyond his power to do so. In the present verse ماکان للّٰه means, it is inconsistent with the Majesty of Allah or it does not befit His Holiness (Aqrab, Lane & Mufradat). See also 2:35.
Commentary:
The words ان یتخذ من ولد express two senses (a) that He should have a son; and (b) that He should adopt someone as His son. When it is inconsistent with God’s Majesty to adopt someone as His son, it is all the more repugnant to His Holiness and Glory to have a real son. These words repudiate the Christian belief, namely (i) that God has adopted Jesus as His son or (ii) that Jesus is God’s son.
Christians believe that Jesus was God’s son. The onus for proving such a manifestly absurd belief lies on them. They base this belief on the assumption that the Bible calls him the son of God. But in the Bible other persons have also been called or addressed as sons of God. Jesus enjoys no special prerogative in this respect and is therefore no more a son of God than those persons who have also been addressed as such.
The Bible says:
(a) "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God" (Luke 20: 36);
(b) "For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" (Jer. 31:9);
(c) "Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name" (Matt. 6:9);
(d) "For if you forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will also forgive you" (Matt. 6:14);
(e) "That your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses" (Mark 11: 25);
(f) "Your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things" (Luke 12: 30);
(g) "We have one Father, even God" (John 8: 41);
(h) "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephes. 4:6);
(i) "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn" (Exod. 4:22).
The Bible rather supports the Quranic statement, viz.it does not befit the Majesty of Allah to take unto Himself a son.He is the One Lord, God, Who has, or needs, no son.
It says:
(a) "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6:4);
(b) "I am the Lord, that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images" (Isa. 42:8);
(c) "Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12: 29);
(d) "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty" (Jude 1: 25);
(e) "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory forever and ever" (I Timothy 1: 17).
The verse under comment gives three reasons why God does not stand in need of a son:(1) if God were supposed to have a son, He must be subject to carnal desires and must have a wife to satisfy them; (2) He must be subject to decay and death because the procreation of species which the attribution of a son to God implies, is the characteristic of mortals; and (3) He must require a helper to assist Him in His work or to continue his work after His death. But God as represented by Islam is completely free from all these defects and therefore needs no son. In fact, the Christian dogma of sonship of Jesus is an insoluble riddle and beyond human comprehension. If Jesus is God’s son, then God will have to be admitted as incapable of carrying on the affairs of the universe alone and unaided, and therefore will have to be accepted as imperfect and defective. But because God is Perfect and All-Powerful, therefore He needs no son and no helper. Again, according to the Christian dogma each of the three deities, God, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, being perfect can and should carry on the work of the universe unaided and yet these three combine to do the thing which each one is able to accomplish by himself. This is absurd.
Those who are ignorant of Arabic language pretend to find in the word کن (be) a ground for their belief in the eternity and indestructibility of matter and soul. They argue in this way. This word shows that there had already existed something to which the order کن (be) was given. But in the Arabic language this word, besides being addressed to a thing, is also used to express a greatly felt desire. In an expedition the Holy Prophet’s very brave and loyal companion, Abu Khaithamah happened to be absent. The Prophet keenly felt his absence. When in the midst of the battle he saw from a great distance a rider coming to him at full speed he exclaimed کن ابا خیثمة i.e. would that it were Abu Khaithamah; and lo! it was really Abu Khaithamah (Halbiyyah). So an Arab would use the word کن when he would passionately desire a thing to happen.
According to this sense of کن the expression کن فیکون would mean that when God desires or intends that a thing should be, it comes into being or that when God expresses a desire it takes a concrete form. The words lend no support to the view that soul and matter are primeval or eternal. See also 2:117-118.
c
10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.
802
基督教徒相信, 伊撒是安拉的儿子。他们是根据 «圣经» 称他为 “安拉的儿子” 这一设想而产生这一信念的。可是 «圣经» 中也有称呼其他人为 “安拉的儿子” 的。伊撒在这方面并没有什么特殊之处, 因此他不过是像称呼那些其他人那样的一个安拉的儿子 («路加» 20:36; «耶利米亚书» 31:9; «马太» 6:9; «约翰» 8:41和 «以弗所书» 4:6)。
803
在阿拉伯语中, كُنْ (Kun) 这个单词, 除了可以向一样东西说以外, 还可以用 来表达一个深切感到的愿望。有一次远征中, 穆圣的一个非常勇敢而忠实的伙伴阿布•卡撒马 (اَبُوْخَيْثَمَة, Abu Khaithamah) 恰巧不在。穆圣深切地感觉到他没在身旁。在战斗中, 他看见一个人从远处骑着马飞驰而来, 他就喊道: كُنْ اَبَا خَيْثَمَة (Kun Aba Khaithamah), 也就是说, 但愿那是阿布•卡撒马; 瞧! 真的是阿布•卡撒马 (حَلْبِيَّة, Halbiyyah)。因此, كُنْ (Kun) 这一单词可以意示, 当安拉想要一件事或东西成为现实时, 它就成为现实; 或者, 当安拉表达这样一个愿望时, 它就具体地出现在面前。这一单词并不支持这样的看法, 说灵魂和物质是和安拉永远并存的或自古就有的。
a
10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.
2180
Important Words:
ماکان للّٰه (It does not befit the Majesty of Allah). They say ماکان له i.e. (1) it does not befit him; behove him; it is inconsistent with his dignity; it is not proper for him; (2) it is beyond his power to do so. In the present verse ماکان للّٰه means, it is inconsistent with the Majesty of Allah or it does not befit His Holiness (Aqrab, Lane & Mufradat). See also 2:35.
Commentary:
The words ان یتخذ من ولد express two senses (a) that He should have a son; and (b) that He should adopt someone as His son. When it is inconsistent with God’s Majesty to adopt someone as His son, it is all the more repugnant to His Holiness and Glory to have a real son. These words repudiate the Christian belief, namely (i) that God has adopted Jesus as His son or (ii) that Jesus is God’s son.
Christians believe that Jesus was God’s son. The onus for proving such a manifestly absurd belief lies on them. They base this belief on the assumption that the Bible calls him the son of God. But in the Bible other persons have also been called or addressed as sons of God. Jesus enjoys no special prerogative in this respect and is therefore no more a son of God than those persons who have also been addressed as such.
The Bible says:
(a) "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God" (Luke 20: 36);
(b) "For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" (Jer. 31:9);
(c) "Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name" (Matt. 6:9);
(d) "For if you forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will also forgive you" (Matt. 6:14);
(e) "That your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses" (Mark 11: 25);
(f) "Your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things" (Luke 12: 30);
(g) "We have one Father, even God" (John 8: 41);
(h) "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephes. 4:6);
(i) "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn" (Exod. 4:22).
The Bible rather supports the Quranic statement, viz.it does not befit the Majesty of Allah to take unto Himself a son.He is the One Lord, God, Who has, or needs, no son.
It says:
(a) "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6:4);
(b) "I am the Lord, that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images" (Isa. 42:8);
(c) "Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12: 29);
(d) "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty" (Jude 1: 25);
(e) "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory forever and ever" (I Timothy 1: 17).
The verse under comment gives three reasons why God does not stand in need of a son:(1) if God were supposed to have a son, He must be subject to carnal desires and must have a wife to satisfy them; (2) He must be subject to decay and death because the procreation of species which the attribution of a son to God implies, is the characteristic of mortals; and (3) He must require a helper to assist Him in His work or to continue his work after His death. But God as represented by Islam is completely free from all these defects and therefore needs no son. In fact, the Christian dogma of sonship of Jesus is an insoluble riddle and beyond human comprehension. If Jesus is God’s son, then God will have to be admitted as incapable of carrying on the affairs of the universe alone and unaided, and therefore will have to be accepted as imperfect and defective. But because God is Perfect and All-Powerful, therefore He needs no son and no helper. Again, according to the Christian dogma each of the three deities, God, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, being perfect can and should carry on the work of the universe unaided and yet these three combine to do the thing which each one is able to accomplish by himself. This is absurd.
Those who are ignorant of Arabic language pretend to find in the word کن (be) a ground for their belief in the eternity and indestructibility of matter and soul. They argue in this way. This word shows that there had already existed something to which the order کن (be) was given. But in the Arabic language this word, besides being addressed to a thing, is also used to express a greatly felt desire. In an expedition the Holy Prophet’s very brave and loyal companion, Abu Khaithamah happened to be absent. The Prophet keenly felt his absence. When in the midst of the battle he saw from a great distance a rider coming to him at full speed he exclaimed کن ابا خیثمة i.e. would that it were Abu Khaithamah; and lo! it was really Abu Khaithamah (Halbiyyah). So an Arab would use the word کن when he would passionately desire a thing to happen.
According to this sense of کن the expression کن فیکون would mean that when God desires or intends that a thing should be, it comes into being or that when God expresses a desire it takes a concrete form. The words lend no support to the view that soul and matter are primeval or eternal. See also 2:117-118.
a
10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.
1769
Christians believe that Jesus was God’s son. They base this belief on the assumption that the Bible calls him "son of God." But in the Bible other persons have also been called or addressed as "sons of God." Jesus enjoys no special distinction in this respect and he is, therefore, no more a son of God than those persons who have also been addressed as such (Luke, 20: 36; Jer., 31: 9; Matt., 6: 9; John, 8: 41 & Ephes., 4: 6).
1770
In the Arabic language the word Kun, besides being addressed to a thing, is also used to express a greatly felt desire. In an expedition the Holy Prophet’s very brave and loyal Companion, Abu Khaithamah happened to be absent. The Holy Prophet keenly felt his absence. When in the midst of the battle he saw from a great distance a rider coming to him at full speed, he exclaimed Kun Aba Khaithamah, i.e. would that it were Abu Khaithamah; and lo! it was really Abu Khaithamah (Halbiyyah). So the word Kun would signify that when God desires or intends a thing to come into being, it comes into being; or when God expresses such a desire it takes a concrete form. The word lends no support to the view that soul and matter are primeval or coeternal with God.
وَقَالُوا۟ ٱتَّخَذَ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنُ وَلَدًا
2:117; 4:172; 6:101, 102; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82.
2:117; 4:172; 6:101, 102; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82.
2:117; 4:172; 6:101-102; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82.
Commentary:
The verse means to say that the so-called followers of Jesus think that he will intercede for them. How could this be possible when he was a strict believer in the Oneness of God and they ascribe partners to the Almighty which is a heinous sin. They possess no likeness with him while one of the most important conditions of intercession is that the person for whom intercession is sought must be like him who is to make the intercession.
f
2:117; 4:172; 6:101, 102; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82.
a
2:117; 4:172; 6:101-102; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82.
2228
Commentary:
The verse means to say that the so-called followers of Jesus think that he will intercede for them. How could this be possible when he was a strict believer in the Oneness of God and they ascribe partners to the Almighty which is a heinous sin. They possess no likeness with him while one of the most important conditions of intercession is that the person for whom intercession is sought must be like him who is to make the intercession.
a
2:117; 4:172; 6:101, 102; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82.
وَمَا يَنۢبَغِى لِلرَّحْمَٰنِ أَن يَتَّخِذَ وَلَدًا
2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 37:152-155.
这一章非常强调而清楚地驳斥了基督教各个教条, 尤其是他们的伊撒是安拉的儿子这一基本教条, 因为所有他们其他的教条都源出于此。本节经文和前四节经文中特别着重地驳斥并谴责了这一教义。值得特别注意的是, 无限博爱这一安拉的常德在本章中反复地提到达十六次之多。由于伊撒是安拉的儿子这一基本教义及其必然的结果--------替世人赎罪的教条--------都是否定安拉的无限博爱这一常德的, 而且由于本章的中心论题是驳斥这一教义, 因此这一常德必然要反复谈及。替世人赎罪这一教条暗指安拉不可能宽恕人们的罪恶;而安拉无限博爱这一常德意示安拉能够并且实际上经常在宽恕他们, 因此, 在本章中反复提及这一常德。
2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 37:152-155.
The Surah contains most emphatic and clear denunciation of Christian dogmas, particularly their basic doctrine that Jesus is son of God, from which all other dogmas flow. In the present and preceding four verses special stress has been laid on the refutation and condemnation of this doctrine. It is worthy of special note that the Divine attribute Ar-Rahman has been repeatedly referred to in this Surah—it has been mentioned as many as sixteen times. As the fundamental dogma of the sonship of Jesus and its corollary, the dogma of atonement involve a denial of the Divine attribute Ar-Rahman and as the central theme of this Surah is the refutation of this dogma, this attribute inevitably has been repeatedly referred to. The dogma of atonement implies that God cannot forgive the sins of men whereas the Divine attribute 'Ar-Rahman' implies that He can and actually does often forgive them, hence its repetition in this Surah.
2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 37:152-155.
Commentary:
The Surah contains a most emphatic and clear denunciation of Christian dogmas, particularly the basic doctrine that Jesus is son of God, from which all other dogmas flow. In the present and preceding four verses special stress has been laid on the refutation and condemnation of this dogma. It is worthy of special note that the Divine attribute "Rahman" has been repeatedly referred to in this Surah—it has been mentioned as many as sixteen times. As the fundamental dogma of the sonship of Jesus and its corollary, the dogma of Atonement, involve a denial of the Divine attribute "Rahman" and as the central theme of this Surah is the refutation of this dogma, this attribute inevitably has been repeatedly referred to. The dogma of Atonement implies that God cannot forgive the sins of men whereas the Divine attribute "Rahman" implies that He can and actually often does forgive them, hence its repetition in this Surah.
g
2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 37:152-155.
808
这一章非常强调而清楚地驳斥了基督教各个教条, 尤其是他们的伊撒是安拉的儿子这一基本教条, 因为所有他们其他的教条都源出于此。本节经文和前四节经文中特别着重地驳斥并谴责了这一教义。值得特别注意的是, 无限博爱这一安拉的常德在本章中反复地提到达十六次之多。由于伊撒是安拉的儿子这一基本教义及其必然的结果--------替世人赎罪的教条--------都是否定安拉的无限博爱这一常德的, 而且由于本章的中心论题是驳斥这一教义, 因此这一常德必然要反复谈及。替世人赎罪这一教条暗指安拉不可能宽恕人们的罪恶;而安拉无限博爱这一常德意示安拉能够并且实际上经常在宽恕他们, 因此, 在本章中反复提及这一常德。
a
2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 37:152-155.
2231
Commentary:
The Surah contains a most emphatic and clear denunciation of Christian dogmas, particularly the basic doctrine that Jesus is son of God, from which all other dogmas flow. In the present and preceding four verses special stress has been laid on the refutation and condemnation of this dogma. It is worthy of special note that the Divine attribute "Rahman" has been repeatedly referred to in this Surah—it has been mentioned as many as sixteen times. As the fundamental dogma of the sonship of Jesus and its corollary, the dogma of Atonement, involve a denial of the Divine attribute "Rahman" and as the central theme of this Surah is the refutation of this dogma, this attribute inevitably has been repeatedly referred to. The dogma of Atonement implies that God cannot forgive the sins of men whereas the Divine attribute "Rahman" implies that He can and actually often does forgive them, hence its repetition in this Surah.
b
2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 37:152-155.
1803
The Surah contains most emphatic and clear denunciation of Christian dogmas, particularly their basic doctrine that Jesus is son of God, from which all other dogmas flow. In the present and preceding four verses special stress has been laid on the refutation and condemnation of this doctrine. It is worthy of special note that the Divine attribute Ar-Rahman has been repeatedly referred to in this Surah—it has been mentioned as many as sixteen times. As the fundamental dogma of the sonship of Jesus and its corollary, the dogma of atonement involve a denial of the Divine attribute Ar-Rahman and as the central theme of this Surah is the refutation of this dogma, this attribute inevitably has been repeatedly referred to. The dogma of atonement implies that God cannot forgive the sins of men whereas the Divine attribute 'Ar-Rahman' implies that He can and actually does often forgive them, hence its repetition in this Surah.
إِن كُلُّ مَن فِى ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ إِلَّآ ءَاتِى ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ عَبْدًا
20:109.
The Gracious God needs no son to help Him or succeed Him, because He is the Lord of the heavens and the earth and His Kingdom extends over the whole universe, and because all men are His servants and Jesus is one of them.
20:109.
Commentary:
The verse purports to say that the Gracious God needs no son to help Him or succeed Him, because He is the Lord of the heavens and the earth and His kingdom extends over the whole universe and because all men are His servants and Jesus is one of them.
a
20:109.
809
无限博爱的安拉不需要儿子来帮助或继承他, 因为他是天地的养主而且他的王国遍及众世界, 而且因为所有的人都是他的仆人, 伊撒也是其中之一。
a
20:109.
2232
Commentary:
The verse purports to say that the Gracious God needs no son to help Him or succeed Him, because He is the Lord of the heavens and the earth and His kingdom extends over the whole universe and because all men are His servants and Jesus is one of them.
a
20:109.
1804
The Gracious God needs no son to help Him or succeed Him, because He is the Lord of the heavens and the earth and His Kingdom extends over the whole universe, and because all men are His servants and Jesus is one of them.
وَقَالُوا۟ ٱتَّخَذَ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنُ وَلَدًا ۗ سُبْحَٰنَهُۥ ۚ بَلْ عِبَادٌ مُّكْرَمُونَ
2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 19:89, 90.
2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 19:89, 90.
2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 19:89-90.
Commentary:
The words "honoured servants" point to the fact that not only Jesus but many other righteous men have been spoken of as God’s sons in former Scriptures and like him they have been called God’s sons only in a metaphorical sense. But they were nothing more than His honoured servants. In this respect Jesus enjoys no special prerogative. He was only one of the numerous honoured servants of God.
b
2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 19:89, 90.
a
2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 19:89-90.
2367
Commentary:
The words "honoured servants" point to the fact that not only Jesus but many other righteous men have been spoken of as God’s sons in former Scriptures and like him they have been called God’s sons only in a metaphorical sense. But they were nothing more than His honoured servants. In this respect Jesus enjoys no special prerogative. He was only one of the numerous honoured servants of God.
a
2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 19:89, 90.
مَا ٱتَّخَذَ ٱللَّهُ مِن وَلَدٍ وَمَا كَانَ مَعَهُۥ مِنْ إِلَٰهٍ ۚ إِذًا لَّذَهَبَ كُلُّ إِلَٰهٍۭ بِمَا خَلَقَ وَلَعَلَا بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ ۚ سُبْحَٰنَ ٱللَّهِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ
18:5; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82; 72:4.
21:23.
The verse very effectively demonstrates the futility and falsity of the Christian dogma that Jesus is God’s son. It purports to say that a son is needed by a person to help him to carry on his affairs, but as God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and the sole Master and Controller of the whole universe, He does not need the help or assistance of any helper or son. Moreover, the whole universe appears to be subject to one uniform law, and the unity of the design, purpose and control points to the unity of the Designer and the Controller. The duality of control and authority implies confusion and disorder.
18:5; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82; 72:4.
21:23.
Commentary:
In brief words the verse very effectively demonstrates the futility and falsity of the Christian dogma that Jesus is God’s son. It purports to say that a son is needed by one to help him to carry on his affairs, but as God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and the Sole Master and Controller of the whole universe, He does not need the help or assistance of any helper or son. Moreover, the whole universe appears to be subject to one uniform law and the unity of the design and purpose and control points to the Unity of the Designer and the Controller. The duality of control and authority implies confusion and disorder. See also 17:43 & 21:23.
b
18:5; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82; 72:4.
c
21:23.
a
18:5; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82; 72:4.
b
21:23.
2572
Commentary:
In brief words the verse very effectively demonstrates the futility and falsity of the Christian dogma that Jesus is God’s son. It purports to say that a son is needed by one to help him to carry on his affairs, but as God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and the Sole Master and Controller of the whole universe, He does not need the help or assistance of any helper or son. Moreover, the whole universe appears to be subject to one uniform law and the unity of the design and purpose and control points to the Unity of the Designer and the Controller. The duality of control and authority implies confusion and disorder. See also 17:43 & 21:23.
b
18:5; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82; 72:4.
c
21:23.
2013
The verse very effectively demonstrates the futility and falsity of the Christian dogma that Jesus is God’s son. It purports to say that a son is needed by a person to help him to carry on his affairs, but as God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and the sole Master and Controller of the whole universe, He does not need the help or assistance of any helper or son. Moreover, the whole universe appears to be subject to one uniform law, and the unity of the design, purpose and control points to the unity of the Designer and the Controller. The duality of control and authority implies confusion and disorder.
ٱلَّذِى لَهُۥ مُلْكُ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ وَلَمْ يَتَّخِذْ وَلَدًا وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُۥ شَرِيكٌ فِى ٱلْمُلْكِ وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَىْءٍ فَقَدَّرَهُۥ تَقْدِيرًا
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 39:5; 43:82.
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 39:5; 43:82.
The clause, 'and has determined its proper measure,' signifies that there is a limit to the powers and functions or development of everything which it cannot defy or go beyond. These limitations point to one law that operates in the whole universe and hence to one Designer, Creator and Controller—a Creator Whose powers are limitless but Who has imposed limits on all things.
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 39:5; 43:82.
Commentary:
The most fundamental and pivotal teaching of the Quran, around which all its other teachings revolve, is the belief in the Oneness of God and it is for the dissemination and establishment of this belief on earth that it has primarily been revealed. The present and the next few verses mention the following six indispensable attributes which the Divine Being Who alone should command our adoration and unconditional and unreserved surrender and submission must possesses: (i) He should be the sole and undisputed Master of what is in the heavens and the earth; (ii) He should need no son to succeed Him or help Him in the control and governance of the universe; (iii) There should be no one to dispute with Him the possession or control of this kingdom; (iv) He should have created everything and have endowed it with proper qualities and attributes and should have ordained proper measure for its continued existence and develop-ment; (v) unlike false deities He should have the power to do good or harm; and (vi) He should possess complete control over life and death. God, the Almighty, possesses all these qualities in full measure; and as He is the Creator of heavens and earth and the undisputed Master of everything that is in and between them, His word must be, and in fact is, in perfect harmony with the laws of nature and therefore its rejection or acceptance constitutes not only the denial or acceptance of a revealed Law but amounts also to flouting or submitting to the laws of nature.
The word ولد is used for both male and female and for singular and plural forms. Thus it means, son or daughter, a child or children. The words, "Who has created everything," signify that God is the Creator of both the matter and the soul. Matter and soul are not uncreated or co-existent with God as is mistakenly held by those who believe in the theory of the transmigration of souls. The clause, "and has given it its proper proportion," means that everything does its allotted task regularly, punctually and without fail and that there is a limit to the powers and functions or development of everything which it cannot defy or go beyond. These limitations point to one law that operates in the whole universe and hence to one Designer, Creator and Controller—a Creator Whose powers are limitless and Who has imposed these limits on all other things.
b
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 39:5; 43:82.
a
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 39:5; 43:82.
2642
Commentary:
The most fundamental and pivotal teaching of the Quran, around which all its other teachings revolve, is the belief in the Oneness of God and it is for the dissemination and establishment of this belief on earth that it has primarily been revealed. The present and the next few verses mention the following six indispensable attributes which the Divine Being Who alone should command our adoration and unconditional and unreserved surrender and submission must possesses: (i) He should be the sole and undisputed Master of what is in the heavens and the earth; (ii) He should need no son to succeed Him or help Him in the control and governance of the universe; (iii) There should be no one to dispute with Him the possession or control of this kingdom; (iv) He should have created everything and have endowed it with proper qualities and attributes and should have ordained proper measure for its continued existence and develop-ment; (v) unlike false deities He should have the power to do good or harm; and (vi) He should possess complete control over life and death. God, the Almighty, possesses all these qualities in full measure; and as He is the Creator of heavens and earth and the undisputed Master of everything that is in and between them, His word must be, and in fact is, in perfect harmony with the laws of nature and therefore its rejection or acceptance constitutes not only the denial or acceptance of a revealed Law but amounts also to flouting or submitting to the laws of nature.
The word ولد is used for both male and female and for singular and plural forms. Thus it means, son or daughter, a child or children. The words, "Who has created everything," signify that God is the Creator of both the matter and the soul. Matter and soul are not uncreated or co-existent with God as is mistakenly held by those who believe in the theory of the transmigration of souls. The clause, "and has given it its proper proportion," means that everything does its allotted task regularly, punctually and without fail and that there is a limit to the powers and functions or development of everything which it cannot defy or go beyond. These limitations point to one law that operates in the whole universe and hence to one Designer, Creator and Controller—a Creator Whose powers are limitless and Who has imposed these limits on all other things.
b
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 39:5; 43:82.
2064
The clause, 'and has determined its proper measure,' signifies that there is a limit to the powers and functions or development of everything which it cannot defy or go beyond. These limitations point to one law that operates in the whole universe and hence to one Designer, Creator and Controller—a Creator Whose powers are limitless but Who has imposed limits on all things.
لَّوْ أَرَادَ ٱللَّهُ أَن يَتَّخِذَ وَلَدًا لَّٱصْطَفَىٰ مِمَّا يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَآءُ ۚ سُبْحَٰنَهُۥ ۖ هُوَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلْوَٰحِدُ ٱلْقَهَّارُ
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 19:89-93
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 19:89-93
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89-93.
Commentary:
The most prevalent and perhaps the most hideous form of idolatry which has done the greatest injury to man’s religious instinct and his spiritual development and which has, therefore, quite rightly been condemned and denounced unsparingly and repeatedly in the Quran is the dogma of Jesus’ being the only son of God. It is this most blasphemous of all Christian dogmas which the present verse seeks to controvert; the argument advanced being that as God is the sole Creator of all things and He is قھار i.e. Most Supreme, He does not stand in need of a son. The argument is continued in the next verse.
e
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 19:89-93
a
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89-93.
3440A
Commentary:
The most prevalent and perhaps the most hideous form of idolatry which has done the greatest injury to man’s religious instinct and his spiritual development and which has, therefore, quite rightly been condemned and denounced unsparingly and repeatedly in the Quran is the dogma of Jesus’ being the only son of God. It is this most blasphemous of all Christian dogmas which the present verse seeks to controvert; the argument advanced being that as God is the sole Creator of all things and He is قھار i.e. Most Supreme, He does not stand in need of a son. The argument is continued in the next verse.
e
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 19:89-93