الطَّیِّبٰتِ
Appears 8 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 8 verses containing "الطَّیِّبٰتِ".
اَلَّذِیۡنَ یَتَّبِعُوۡنَ الرَّسُوۡلَ النَّبِیَّ الۡاُمِّیَّ الَّذِیۡ یَجِدُوۡنَہٗ مَکۡتُوۡبًا عِنۡدَہُمۡ فِی التَّوۡرٰٮۃِ وَالۡاِنۡجِیۡلِ یَاۡمُرُہُمۡ بِالۡمَعۡرُوۡفِ وَیَنۡہٰٮہُمۡ عَنِ الۡمُنۡکَرِ وَیُحِلُّ لَہُمُ الطَّیِّبٰتِ وَیُحَرِّمُ عَلَیۡہِمُ الۡخَبٰٓئِثَ وَیَضَعُ عَنۡہُمۡ اِصۡرَہُمۡ وَالۡاَغۡلٰلَ الَّتِیۡ کَانَتۡ عَلَیۡہِمۡ ۚ فَالَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا بِہٖ وَعَزَّرُوۡہُ وَنَصَرُوۡہُ وَاتَّبَعُوا النُّوۡرَ الَّذِیۡۤ اُنۡزِلَ مَعَہٗۤ ۙ اُولٰٓئِکَ ہُمُ الۡمُفۡلِحُوۡنَ
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.
وَاذۡکُرُوۡۤا اِذۡ اَنۡتُمۡ قَلِیۡلٌ مُّسۡتَضۡعَفُوۡنَ فِی الۡاَرۡضِ تَخَافُوۡنَ اَنۡ یَّتَخَطَّفَکُمُ النَّاسُ فَاٰوٰٮکُمۡ وَاَیَّدَکُمۡ بِنَصۡرِہٖ وَرَزَقَکُمۡ مِّنَ الطَّیِّبٰتِ لَعَلَّکُمۡ تَشۡکُرُوۡنَ
Muslims are here told that as God had saved them when they were weak in the land and were surrounded by strong and mischievous people, so they should strive to protect the weak when they are in power. The verse implies a prophecy that Muslims will soon attain political power.
7:87.
Commentary:
Muslims are here told that as God saved them when they were weak in the land and were surrounded by wicked and mischievous people, so they should strive to save those who are weak and surrounded by dangers. The verse also hints that as Muslims will soon prosper and attain power, they should never forget the days of hardships through which they have passed, i.e. in the days of their power, they should never oppress the weak creatures of God but should always treat them with justice and mercy.
b
7:87.
1115
Commentary:
Muslims are here told that as God saved them when they were weak in the land and were surrounded by wicked and mischievous people, so they should strive to save those who are weak and surrounded by dangers. The verse also hints that as Muslims will soon prosper and attain power, they should never forget the days of hardships through which they have passed, i.e. in the days of their power, they should never oppress the weak creatures of God but should always treat them with justice and mercy.
1112
Muslims are here told that as God had saved them when they were weak in the land and were surrounded by strong and mischievous people, so they should strive to protect the weak when they are in power. The verse implies a prophecy that Muslims will soon attain political power.
وَلَقَدۡ بَوَّاۡنَا بَنِیۡۤ اِسۡرٰٓءِیۡلَ مُبَوَّاَ صِدۡقٍ وَّرَزَقۡنٰہُمۡ مِّنَ الطَّیِّبٰتِ فَمَا اخۡتَلَفُوۡا حَتّٰی جَآءَہُمُ الۡعِلۡمُ ۚ اِنَّ رَبَّکَ یَقۡضِیۡ بَیۡنَہُمۡ یَوۡمَ الۡقِیٰمَۃِ فِیۡمَا کَانُوۡا فِیۡہِ یَخۡتَلِفُوۡنَ
یعنی جب بھی ان کے پاس رسول آئے انہوں نے اختلاف کیا۔ رسولوں کی تعلیم سے پہلے روایتی ایمان دکھاتے رہے۔
یعنی محمد رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم سے اختلاف ہی سب سے بڑا اختلاف تھا۔ اس کا فیصلہ قیامت کے دن ضرور ہوگا۔
45:17.
45:18.
Commentary:
Among the "good things" mentioned in this verse as having been bestowed on the Israelites, Divine revelation occupied the foremost place, for it mostly pertains to the spirit and comes direct from God. The words "good things" may also be taken in their material sense. In Egypt the Israelites worked as labourers and lived an ignoble life. But after their deliverance from bondage, God provided them with the good things of this world.
By the word علم (knowledge) in the clause, until there came to them the knowledge, is here meant the Quran and not the Torah, for there passed no interval between the revelation of the Torah and the formation of the Israelites into an organized community. Thus they cannot be said to have disagreed among themselves after its revelation.
When the Holy Prophet of Islam was about to make his appearance, the Jews held the belief that a Prophet like unto Moses was to appear very soon; but when the Promised Prophet did actually appear, they differed and disagreed as to whom the prophecies about the Promised Prophet applied. Some Jews denied that the prophecies had found fulfilment in the Prophet of Islam, while others sought to deny the very existence of any such prophecies in the Bible.
That the disagreement referred to in this verse was the one which arose among the Israelites after the Quran was revealed is also clear from the next verse which says: And if thou, (O addressee) art in doubt concerning that which We have sent down to thee (viz. the Quran). This verse clearly shows that in the verse under comment the "knowledge" after the coming of which the Israelites differed among themselves refers to the Quran.
The Jews were so ardently expecting the Prophet who was to be the like of Moses (Deut. 18:18) and who was to appear in Arabia amongst the descendants of Ishmael, the brethren of the Israelites, that some of them had even migrated to Arabia and had settled in Medina that they might be among the first to believe in him when he made his appearance. It is a strange irony of fate that these very Jewish settlers of Arabia proved to be his bitterest enemies when the Promised Prophet actually made his appearance.
a
45:18.
d
45:17.
1
یعنی جب بھی ان کے پاس رسول آئے انہوں نے اختلاف کیا۔ رسولوں کی تعلیم سے پہلے روایتی ایمان دکھاتے رہے۔
2
یعنی محمد رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم سے اختلاف ہی سب سے بڑا اختلاف تھا۔ اس کا فیصلہ قیامت کے دن ضرور ہوگا۔
a
45:17.
b
45:18.
1366
Commentary:
Among the "good things" mentioned in this verse as having been bestowed on the Israelites, Divine revelation occupied the foremost place, for it mostly pertains to the spirit and comes direct from God. The words "good things" may also be taken in their material sense. In Egypt the Israelites worked as labourers and lived an ignoble life. But after their deliverance from bondage, God provided them with the good things of this world.
By the word علم (knowledge) in the clause, until there came to them the knowledge, is here meant the Quran and not the Torah, for there passed no interval between the revelation of the Torah and the formation of the Israelites into an organized community. Thus they cannot be said to have disagreed among themselves after its revelation.
When the Holy Prophet of Islam was about to make his appearance, the Jews held the belief that a Prophet like unto Moses was to appear very soon; but when the Promised Prophet did actually appear, they differed and disagreed as to whom the prophecies about the Promised Prophet applied. Some Jews denied that the prophecies had found fulfilment in the Prophet of Islam, while others sought to deny the very existence of any such prophecies in the Bible.
That the disagreement referred to in this verse was the one which arose among the Israelites after the Quran was revealed is also clear from the next verse which says: And if thou, (O addressee) art in doubt concerning that which We have sent down to thee (viz. the Quran). This verse clearly shows that in the verse under comment the "knowledge" after the coming of which the Israelites differed among themselves refers to the Quran.
The Jews were so ardently expecting the Prophet who was to be the like of Moses (Deut. 18:18) and who was to appear in Arabia amongst the descendants of Ishmael, the brethren of the Israelites, that some of them had even migrated to Arabia and had settled in Medina that they might be among the first to believe in him when he made his appearance. It is a strange irony of fate that these very Jewish settlers of Arabia proved to be his bitterest enemies when the Promised Prophet actually made his appearance.
b
45:17.
c
45:18.
وَاللّٰہُ جَعَلَ لَکُمۡ مِّنۡ اَنۡفُسِکُمۡ اَزۡوٰجًا وَّجَعَلَ لَکُمۡ مِّنۡ اَزۡوٰجِکُمۡ بَنِیۡنَ وَحَفَدَۃً وَّرَزَقَکُمۡ مِّنَ الطَّیِّبٰتِ ۚ اَفَبِالۡبٰطِلِ یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ وَبِنِعۡمَتِ اللّٰہِ ہُمۡ یَکۡفُرُوۡنَ
قرآن کریم میں ہے مِنْ اَنْفُسِکُمْ اور اقرب الموارد اور شرح مِائَۃُ عَامِل میں لکھا ہے کہ مِنْ کے معنے بعض کے بھی ہوتے ہیں۔ اس کی رو سے اس آیت کے یہ معنے بنیں گے کہ تمہاری بیویاں ان ماں باپ کی بیٹیاں ہیں جو تمہاری طرح کے ہیں۔ اس لئے ان کے جذبات بھی وہی ہیں جو تمہارے ہیں۔
4:2; 7:190; 30:22; 39:7.
29:68.
The verse refers to the instinct of private possession as an argument in support of the Unity of God.
4:2; 7:190; 30:22; 39:7.
29:68.
Important Words:
حفدة (grandsons) is derived from حفد which means, he was quick or went quickly; was continuous in his course or pace. حفد فی العمل means, he was quick and active, agile or prompt, in work. حفدہ means, he served him. حفدة means, assistants, helpers, or auxiliaries and servants; a man’s grandchildren or sons’ children or a son’s children; children or daughters who serve their parents in the house or a man’s children or grandchildren who serve him (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
In this and the adjoining verses the two themes of the need of a revealed Law and the Unity of Godhead have been dealt with from various points of view, not at random, but in support of each other, and it has been made clear that while on the one hand man is apt to fall a victim to polytheistic beliefs and practices without a revealed Law, on the other the Unity of God requires that God should make provision for man’s guidance. As there is no other god except Him, He Himself must provide for the guidance of His creatures. The Oneness of God implies His perfection and that perfection demands that the creation of man must have a purpose, for a purposeless creation suggests a defective Creator. Again, if man were considered to have been created with a purpose, the fulfilment of that purpose would necessarily require an afterlife, for evidently such a purpose is incapable of being fulfilled in the brief span of man’s terrestrial existence. Now the purpose which requires limitless and infinite life for its fulfilment must be highly noble and sublime and so the Law which is intended to accomplish it must also proceed from God Himself. Thus the subjects of the Unity of God and the need of revealed guidance have been mentioned in support of each other in different forms in these verses and just as in the physical world we see that things receive support from one another, similarly in the spiritual realm various parts of the spiritual edifice support one another in order to establish the one supreme truth of the Oneness of God and the Unity and uniformity of creation.
The verse adduces another argument in support of the Unity of Godhead, viz. the human instinct of private possession. It was pointed out in the previous verse that the exclusive possession of wealth and power by certain individuals makes it necessary that there should be a revealed Law to maintain equality and justice between different classes. In this verse it is stated that the instinct of private possession prompts man to transmit his property to his natural heirs and not to strangers. How then can he, in fairness to God, dare set up 'partners' who should share Godhead with Him and thus set the seal on his ingratitude to Him? The way in which man displays his ingratitude to God is dealt with in the next verse.
a
4:2; 7:190; 30:22; 39:7.
b
29:68.
1
قرآن کریم میں ہے مِنْ اَنْفُسِکُمْ اور اقرب الموارد اور شرح مِائَۃُ عَامِل میں لکھا ہے کہ مِنْ کے معنے بعض کے بھی ہوتے ہیں۔ اس کی رو سے اس آیت کے یہ معنے بنیں گے کہ تمہاری بیویاں ان ماں باپ کی بیٹیاں ہیں جو تمہاری طرح کے ہیں۔ اس لئے ان کے جذبات بھی وہی ہیں جو تمہارے ہیں۔
a
4:2; 7:190; 30:22; 39:7.
b
29:68.
1873
Important Words:
حفدة (grandsons) is derived from حفد which means, he was quick or went quickly; was continuous in his course or pace. حفد فی العمل means, he was quick and active, agile or prompt, in work. حفدہ means, he served him. حفدة means, assistants, helpers, or auxiliaries and servants; a man’s grandchildren or sons’ children or a son’s children; children or daughters who serve their parents in the house or a man’s children or grandchildren who serve him (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
In this and the adjoining verses the two themes of the need of a revealed Law and the Unity of Godhead have been dealt with from various points of view, not at random, but in support of each other, and it has been made clear that while on the one hand man is apt to fall a victim to polytheistic beliefs and practices without a revealed Law, on the other the Unity of God requires that God should make provision for man’s guidance. As there is no other god except Him, He Himself must provide for the guidance of His creatures. The Oneness of God implies His perfection and that perfection demands that the creation of man must have a purpose, for a purposeless creation suggests a defective Creator. Again, if man were considered to have been created with a purpose, the fulfilment of that purpose would necessarily require an afterlife, for evidently such a purpose is incapable of being fulfilled in the brief span of man’s terrestrial existence. Now the purpose which requires limitless and infinite life for its fulfilment must be highly noble and sublime and so the Law which is intended to accomplish it must also proceed from God Himself. Thus the subjects of the Unity of God and the need of revealed guidance have been mentioned in support of each other in different forms in these verses and just as in the physical world we see that things receive support from one another, similarly in the spiritual realm various parts of the spiritual edifice support one another in order to establish the one supreme truth of the Oneness of God and the Unity and uniformity of creation.
The verse adduces another argument in support of the Unity of Godhead, viz. the human instinct of private possession. It was pointed out in the previous verse that the exclusive possession of wealth and power by certain individuals makes it necessary that there should be a revealed Law to maintain equality and justice between different classes. In this verse it is stated that the instinct of private possession prompts man to transmit his property to his natural heirs and not to strangers. How then can he, in fairness to God, dare set up 'partners' who should share Godhead with Him and thus set the seal on his ingratitude to Him? The way in which man displays his ingratitude to God is dealt with in the next verse.
a
4:2; 7:190; 30:22; 39:7.
b
29:68.
1560
The verse refers to the instinct of private possession as an argument in support of the Unity of God.
۞ وَلَقَدۡ کَرَّمۡنَا بَنِیۡۤ اٰدَمَ وَحَمَلۡنٰہُمۡ فِی الۡبَرِّ وَالۡبَحۡرِ وَرَزَقۡنٰہُمۡ مِّنَ الطَّیِّبٰتِ وَفَضَّلۡنٰہُمۡ عَلٰی کَثِیۡرٍ مِّمَّنۡ خَلَقۡنَا تَفۡضِیۡلًا
یعنی انسانوں کو۔
God has equally honoured all the children of Adam and has not favoured any particular nation or tribe. The verse demolishes all foolish notions of superiority based on colour, creed, race or nationality. It further says that all avenues of progress and prosperity have been kept open equally for all men and these avenues lie as much in travel by land as by sea.
The laying of stress on travel by sea in the Qur’an seems to be rather strange. The fact, that a Book revealed to an Arab, and of all Arabs the Holy Prophet, who throughout his life never experienced a sea-voyage, should have so much emphasized the importance of sea-voyaging, does indeed show that the Qur’an could not have been his composition. He did not and could not know the great benefits of sea-voyaging.
As a class man, being God’s vicegerent on earth, is superior to all other creation.
Commentary:
The verse means to say that God has equally honoured all the children of Adam and has not favoured any particular nation or tribe. It seeks to demolish all foolish notions of superiority based on colour, creed, race or nationality. It further says that all avenues of progress and prosperity have been kept open, equally for all men and these avenues lie as much in travel by land as by sea. The laying of stress on travel by sea in the Quran seems strange. The fact that an Arab, and of all Arabs the Holy Prophet, who throughout his whole life never experienced a sea voyage, should have so much emphasized the importance of sea-voyaging does indeed show that the Quran could not be his composition. He did not and could not know the great benefits of sea-voyaging.
The words, and exalted them far above many, may seem to suggest that man is superior only to certain species of creation and not all creation. But a little deeper reflection over the expression makes such an inference appear quite unwarranted. The verse speaks of all mankind and it is true that all men are not superior to all other creatures. There are men morally so degraded as to be worse than animals and beasts. There are others who are superior even to the angels. There are others still who are so righteous as to occupy a higher spiritual position than even the most exalted angels. In short, all men are not superior to all other creatures, but some men do top the whole creation and man as such is superior to most of the creation, for the sun, the moon, the stars, and animals have been created for him and are engaged in his service. Hence, mankind as a class is superior to most of God’s creatures, while man in his perfect spiritual state is certainly superior to the whole creation.
1
یعنی انسانوں کو۔
2000
Commentary:
The verse means to say that God has equally honoured all the children of Adam and has not favoured any particular nation or tribe. It seeks to demolish all foolish notions of superiority based on colour, creed, race or nationality. It further says that all avenues of progress and prosperity have been kept open, equally for all men and these avenues lie as much in travel by land as by sea. The laying of stress on travel by sea in the Quran seems strange. The fact that an Arab, and of all Arabs the Holy Prophet, who throughout his whole life never experienced a sea voyage, should have so much emphasized the importance of sea-voyaging does indeed show that the Quran could not be his composition. He did not and could not know the great benefits of sea-voyaging.
The words, and exalted them far above many, may seem to suggest that man is superior only to certain species of creation and not all creation. But a little deeper reflection over the expression makes such an inference appear quite unwarranted. The verse speaks of all mankind and it is true that all men are not superior to all other creatures. There are men morally so degraded as to be worse than animals and beasts. There are others who are superior even to the angels. There are others still who are so righteous as to occupy a higher spiritual position than even the most exalted angels. In short, all men are not superior to all other creatures, but some men do top the whole creation and man as such is superior to most of the creation, for the sun, the moon, the stars, and animals have been created for him and are engaged in his service. Hence, mankind as a class is superior to most of God’s creatures, while man in his perfect spiritual state is certainly superior to the whole creation.
1635
God has equally honoured all the children of Adam and has not favoured any particular nation or tribe. The verse demolishes all foolish notions of superiority based on colour, creed, race or nationality. It further says that all avenues of progress and prosperity have been kept open equally for all men and these avenues lie as much in travel by land as by sea.
1635A
The laying of stress on travel by sea in the Qur’an seems to be rather strange. The fact, that a Book revealed to an Arab, and of all Arabs the Holy Prophet, who throughout his life never experienced a sea-voyage, should have so much emphasized the importance of sea-voyaging, does indeed show that the Qur’an could not have been his composition. He did not and could not know the great benefits of sea-voyaging.
1635B
As a class man, being God’s vicegerent on earth, is superior to all other creation.
یٰۤاَیُّہَا الرُّسُلُ کُلُوۡا مِنَ الطَّیِّبٰتِ وَاعۡمَلُوۡا صٰلِحًا ۖ اِنِّیۡ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُوۡنَ عَلِیۡمٌ
7:33.
7:33.
The fact that there exists a deep and subtle connection between the food that a person eats and his actions, good or bad, has now begun to be increasingly recognized by medical science. But Islam laid down as far back as 1400 years directions relating to food which possess great moral significance. The basic principle laid down by Islam in this regard is that as man must develop all his natural instincts and faculties, therefore he should partake of all kinds of food, except those that are likely to do him physical, moral or spiritual harm. The use of pure and good food produces healthy mental condition which in turn produces good and righteous actions.
7:33.
Commentary:
The fact that there exists a deep and subtle connection between the food that a person eats and his actions good or bad has now begun to be increasingly recognized by medical science. But Islam laid down as far back as 1400 years directions and instructions relating to food which possess great moral significance. While it is admitted that the properties of vegetables and mineral foods have their effect upon man, there is no reason why a man should not be affected by peculiar habits of an animal whose flesh he frequently eats. It has been established that the eating of the flesh of certain animals encourages unnatural vice and sexual perversions. Further research in this direction will confirm the principle on which Islamic restrictions and regulations concerning food are based. The basic principle laid down by Islam is that as man must develop all his natural instincts and faculties, therefore he should partake of all kinds of food, except those that are likely to do him physical, moral or spiritual harm. The use of pure and good food produces healthy mental condition which in turn produces good and righteous actions. It is to this great scientific truth that the words "and do good deeds" point, and thus by recognizing that food exerts a powerful influence on man’s morals Islam has subjected it to certain limits and conditions.
The word الرسل (Messengers) includes their followers also. The commandments given to the Messengers and Prophets of God are meant for their followers also.
a
7:33.
a
7:33.
2545
Commentary:
The fact that there exists a deep and subtle connection between the food that a person eats and his actions good or bad has now begun to be increasingly recognized by medical science. But Islam laid down as far back as 1400 years directions and instructions relating to food which possess great moral significance. While it is admitted that the properties of vegetables and mineral foods have their effect upon man, there is no reason why a man should not be affected by peculiar habits of an animal whose flesh he frequently eats. It has been established that the eating of the flesh of certain animals encourages unnatural vice and sexual perversions. Further research in this direction will confirm the principle on which Islamic restrictions and regulations concerning food are based. The basic principle laid down by Islam is that as man must develop all his natural instincts and faculties, therefore he should partake of all kinds of food, except those that are likely to do him physical, moral or spiritual harm. The use of pure and good food produces healthy mental condition which in turn produces good and righteous actions. It is to this great scientific truth that the words "and do good deeds" point, and thus by recognizing that food exerts a powerful influence on man’s morals Islam has subjected it to certain limits and conditions.
The word الرسل (Messengers) includes their followers also. The commandments given to the Messengers and Prophets of God are meant for their followers also.
a
7:33.
2001
The fact that there exists a deep and subtle connection between the food that a person eats and his actions, good or bad, has now begun to be increasingly recognized by medical science. But Islam laid down as far back as 1400 years directions relating to food which possess great moral significance. The basic principle laid down by Islam in this regard is that as man must develop all his natural instincts and faculties, therefore he should partake of all kinds of food, except those that are likely to do him physical, moral or spiritual harm. The use of pure and good food produces healthy mental condition which in turn produces good and righteous actions.
اَللّٰہُ الَّذِیۡ جَعَلَ لَکُمُ الۡاَرۡضَ قَرَارًا وَّالسَّمَآءَ بِنَآءً وَّصَوَّرَکُمۡ فَاَحۡسَنَ صُوَرَکُمۡ وَرَزَقَکُمۡ مِّنَ الطَّیِّبٰتِ ۚ ذٰلِکُمُ اللّٰہُ رَبُّکُمۡ ۖ فَتَبَارَکَ اللّٰہُ رَبُّ الۡعٰلَمِیۡنَ
7:12; 23:15; 64:4.
7:12; 23:15; 64:4.
7:12; 23:15; 39:7; 64:4.
2:173; 23:15.
Commentary:
The theme dealt with in vv. 62 and 63 above has been treated in a different form in the present verse. The inference derived, however, is the same.
c
7:12; 23:15; 64:4.
b
7:12; 23:15; 39:7; 64:4.
c
2:173; 23:15.
3541
Commentary:
The theme dealt with in vv. 62 and 63 above has been treated in a different form in the present verse. The inference derived, however, is the same.
a
7:12; 23:15; 64:4.
وَلَقَدۡ اٰتَیۡنَا بَنِیۡۤ اِسۡرٰٓءِیۡلَ الۡکِتٰبَ وَالۡحُکۡمَ وَالنُّبُوَّۃَ وَرَزَقۡنٰہُمۡ مِّنَ الطَّیِّبٰتِ وَفَضَّلۡنٰہُمۡ عَلَی الۡعٰلَمِیۡنَ
6:90.
10:94.
Mention of Prophethood, separate from "the Book" (which means the Law or the Shari‘ah) shows that while Moses was given the Law, the Prophets who came after him brought no new Law but followed the Torah—the Book of Moses (5: 45).
6:90.
10:94.
Commentary:
The mention of prophethood, separate from "the Book" (which means the Law or the Shari‘ah), shows that while Moses was given the Law, the Prophets who came after him brought no new Law but followed the Torah—the Book of Moses. Elsewhere, the Quran says: Surely, We sent down the Torah wherein was guidance and light. By it did the Prophets who were obedient to this judge for the Jews (5:47),
b
6:90.
c
10:94.
1246
这里除了 “经典” (意思是法令或 شَرِيْعَة, Shari‘ah) 外, 还提到先知品位, 说明穆撒得到法令之后, 众先知没有带来新的法令, 而只是遵循 «讨拉德»--------«摩西五经» 罢了(5:45)。
b
6:90.
c
10:94.
3741
Commentary:
The mention of prophethood, separate from "the Book" (which means the Law or the Shari‘ah), shows that while Moses was given the Law, the Prophets who came after him brought no new Law but followed the Torah—the Book of Moses. Elsewhere, the Quran says: Surely, We sent down the Torah wherein was guidance and light. By it did the Prophets who were obedient to this judge for the Jews (5:47),
c
6:90.
d
10:94.
2710
Mention of Prophethood, separate from "the Book" (which means the Law or the Shari‘ah) shows that while Moses was given the Law, the Prophets who came after him brought no new Law but followed the Torah—the Book of Moses (5: 45).