اٰبَآؤُکُمۡ
Appears 5 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 5 verses containing "اٰبَآؤُکُمۡ".
یُوۡصِیۡکُمُ اللّٰہُ فِیۡۤ اَوۡلٰدِکُمۡ ۖ لِلذَّکَرِ مِثۡلُ حَظِّ الۡاُنۡثَیَیۡنِ ۚ فَاِنۡ کُنَّ نِسَآءً فَوۡقَ اثۡنَتَیۡنِ فَلَہُنَّ ثُلُثَا مَا تَرَکَ ۖ وَاِنۡ کَانَتۡ وٰحِدَۃً فَلَہَا النِّصۡفُ ۚ وَلِاَبَوَیۡہِ لِکُلِّ وٰحِدٍ مِّنۡہُمَا السُّدُسُ مِمَّا تَرَکَ اِنۡ کَانَ لَہٗ وَلَدٌ ۚ فَاِنۡ لَّمۡ یَکُنۡ لَّہٗ وَلَدٌ وَّوَرِثَہٗۤ اَبَوَاہُ فَلِاُمِّہِ الثُّلُثُ ۚ فَاِنۡ کَانَ لَہٗۤ اِخۡوَۃٌ فَلِاُمِّہِ السُّدُسُ ۚ مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِ وَصِیَّۃٍ یُّوۡصِیۡ بِہَاۤ اَوۡ دَیۡنٍ ۗ اٰبَآؤُکُمۡ وَاَبۡنَآؤُکُمۡ لَا تَدۡرُوۡنَ اَیُّہُمۡ اَقۡرَبُ لَکُمۡ نَفۡعًا ۚ فَرِیۡضَۃً مِّنَ اللّٰہِ ۗ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ کَانَ عَلِیۡمًا حَکِیۡمًا
4:177.
这节经文规定一个死者的近亲不论男女或出生的先后应得他遗产的份额。儿女、双亲、丈夫与妻子是主要继承人, 如果他们活着, 不论在什么情况下应得自己的一份, 其他有名份的亲戚只能在特殊情况下得到他们的一份。男的比女的应得的份额要多一倍, 因为他们负责维持家计 (مَعَانِی, Ma‘ani, ii.P.32)。这节经文开始时制定关于子女所得份额的比例的一般法则。一个儿子应得等于两个女儿的份额。因此, 凡是儿子和女儿都有的情况下, 就按这一法则办事。如果只有女儿而没有儿子, 经文规定把遗产的三分之二分给两个以上的女儿; 把二分之一给独生女。如果是两个女儿那应该分得多少, 经文没明确说明。但此句中用一个连接词 ف (fa, 但是), “但是如果有两个以上的女儿”, 这清楚地指出两个女儿已包括在前面 “两个女儿” 这几个字中。而且两个女人应得的份数可以在这节经文开始时所说的男女应得份数的比例中推想出来。按照那个比例, 一个儿子可得两个女儿的份数。因此, 如果有一个儿子和一个女儿, 那个儿子可得三分之二的遗产。可是, 由于一个儿子可得等于 “两个女儿” 的份额, 因此没有儿子而有两个女儿的情况下可得三分之二, 即等于经文明确说明给三个女儿相同的份额。因此, 这节经文的结构表明, 如果死者有两个女儿而没有儿子, 她们像有三个女儿的情况那样也可得三分之二的遗产。假如 «古兰经» 的这一句并不指两个女儿应得的份额, 那么, 这句用字就应该像这样, “一个男人应得一个女人两倍的份额”, 而不是像现在那样的句子。关于双亲的份额经文中谈了三种情况: (1) 如果一个人死了留下一个或几个儿女, 那么, 父母亲中每个人应得六分之一。(2) 如果一个人死后无儿女, 他的父母是惟一继承人 (死者没有妻子或丈夫), 那么, 母亲应得三分之一的财产, 其馀的三分之二归父亲所有。(3) 还有第三种情况, 实际上是第二种情况的例外。一个人死后无嗣, 他的父母亲是惟一的继承人, 但他有兄弟姐妹, 那么, 虽然他的兄弟姐妹不能继承他的财产, 但他们的存在会影响他父母亲的份额, 因为, 在这种情况下, 母亲将得六分之一 (不是像第二种情况那样得三份之一), 其余的六分之五归父亲所有。父亲在这种情况下被授予较大的份额的理由是, 父亲还要负担死者兄弟姐妹的生活。关于继承权的这一论题, 在随后的经文中继续谈下去。
4:177.
Father and mother both (Lane).
Walad means, (1) a child, son, daughter or a young one; (2) children, sons, daughters, offspring or young ones. The word is used both as singular and plural, feminine and masculine (Lane).
The verse prescribes suitable shares for all near relatives in the property of a deceased person without distinction of sex or order of birth. Children, parents, husbands and wives are the principal heirs who, if alive, get suitable shares in all circumstances, other relations having a title only in special cases. A male has been given double the share of a female because he has been made responsible for the maintenance of his family (Ma‘ani, ii. p.32). The verse begins by laying down a general rule as to the proportion of shares between sons and daughters. A son is to have as much as two daughters. So, wherever there are both sons and daughters, this rule will come in force. When, however, there are only daughters and no son, the verse allots two- thirds of the legacy to the daughters, if there are more than two of them; and one-half if there is only one. The share of daughters in case there are two is not expressly stated. But the use of the conjunction fa’ (but) in the clause, but if there be
4:177.
Important Words:
ابویه (his parents) is really ابوینه, the letter ن being dropped owing to اضافة. The word ابوین is the genitive of ابوان which is the dual form of اب which is originally ابو meaning, father or grandfather or any male ancestor or paternal uncle. ابوانliterally meaning "two fathers" signifies "father and mother" (Lane).
ولد (child) is very general in its significance meaning: (1) a child, son, daughter or a young one; (2) children, sons, daughters, offspring or young ones. Thus the word is used both as singular and plural, feminine and masculine (Lane).
Commentary:
This and the succeeding verse combined with the last verse of the Surah give the Islamic law of inheritance in a nutshell.
Islam prescribes suitable shares for all near relatives in the property of a deceased person without distinction of sex or order of birth. Children, parents, husbands and wives are the principal heirs who, if alive, get suitable shares in all circumstances, other relations having a title only in special cases. A male has been given double the share of a female because he has been made responsible for the maintenance of the family (Ma‘ani, vol. ii, p. 32).
The Islamic law of inheritance is perfect and it safeguards against all evils that result from laws prescribed by, or in vogue in, other faiths and communities. It aims at a fair distribution of wealth and equal chances of progress for all. To give the property of a deceased parent to the firstborn son only or to exclude the female members from inheritance or to disinherit parents in the presence of children has proved a veritable curse for society in many ways—moral, social and economic. The Islamic law of inheritance, reinforced by the system of Zakah (prescribed alms) and by the injunction prohibiting the giving and taking of interest, provides a golden mean between capitalism and communism—the two evil extremes of the present-day economic system.
The verse begins by laying down a general rule as to the proportion of shares between sons and daughters. A son is to have as much as two daughters. So wherever there are both sons and daughters, this rule will come in force. When, however, there are only daughters and no son, the verse allots two-thirds of the legacy to the daughters if there are more than two of them, and one-half if there is only one. The share of daughters, in case there are two, is not expressly stated. But the use of the conjunction فا (but) in the clause, but if there be females only, numbering more than two, clearly points to the fact that the share of two females has been referred to in the preceding words "two females". Moreover, the share of two females can be gathered from what has already been said in the beginning of the verse about the ratio between the shares of the males and the females. According to that ratio, a son is to get as much as two daughters. Thus, if there be one son and one daughter, the son will have two-thirds. But as the share of one son has been made equal to that of "two daughters", the latter, in case there is no son, will have two-thirds, viz., the same share as has been expressly fixed for three daughters. Thus, the very construction of the verse shows that if there be two daughters and no son, they too, as in the case of three daughters, will get two-thirds. If it had not been the object of the Quran to point to the share of two daughters in the clause, it would have been something like this, "a male shall have twice as much as a female", and not as it is now.
The above meaning is corroborated by a saying of the Holy Prophet himself. It is related that when a Companion of the Holy Prophet named Sa‘d bin Rabi‘ah died in the Battle of Uhud, leaving two daughters and one widow, his brother took away the whole property, leaving nothing for the two daughters. Thereupon the widow of Sa‘d went to the Holy Prophet and said, "Here are the two daughters of Sa‘d. Their uncle has taken the whole of his property and has left nothing for them." The Holy Prophet told her to wait till God should decide the matter. Then this verse was revealed and the Prophet called upon Sa‘d’s brother to give two-thirds of Sa‘d’s property to his two daughters and one-eighth to their mother and keep the rest for himself (Tirmidhi & Dawud).
The verse speaks of three cases as regards the share of the parents: (1) If a person dies leaving one or more children, then each of his parents shall have one-sixth; (2) If a person dies issueless and his parents are the sole heirs (there being no wife or husband of the deceased person), then the mother will have one-third of the property and the remaining two-thirds will go to the father; (3) There is a third case, which is really an exception to the second case. A man dies without issue and his parents are his sole heirs, but he has brothers or sisters. Then, although his brother or sisters will not inherit from him, yet their presence will affect the share of the parents, for, in this case, the mother will have one-sixth (instead of one-third, as in the second case) and the remaining five-sixths will go to the father. The reason why the father is awarded a larger share in this case is that the father has also to support the brothers or sisters of the deceased. The subject of inheritance is continued in the succeeding verse.
b
4:177.
314
这节经文规定一个死者的近亲不论男女或出生的先后应得他遗产的份额。儿女、双亲、丈夫与妻子是主要继承人, 如果他们活着, 不论在什么情况下应得自己的一份, 其他有名份的亲戚只能在特殊情况下得到他们的一份。男的比女的应得的份额要多一倍, 因为他们负责维持家计 (مَعَانِی, Ma‘ani, ii.P.32)。这节经文开始时制定关于子女所得份额的比例的一般法则。一个儿子应得等于两个女儿的份额。因此, 凡是儿子和女儿都有的情况下, 就按这一法则办事。如果只有女儿而没有儿子, 经文规定把遗产的三分之二分给两个以上的女儿; 把二分之一给独生女。如果是两个女儿那应该分得多少, 经文没明确说明。但此句中用一个连接词 ف (fa, 但是), “但是如果有两个以上的女儿”, 这清楚地指出两个女儿已包括在前面 “两个女儿” 这几个字中。而且两个女人应得的份数可以在这节经文开始时所说的男女应得份数的比例中推想出来。按照那个比例, 一个儿子可得两个女儿的份数。因此, 如果有一个儿子和一个女儿, 那个儿子可得三分之二的遗产。可是, 由于一个儿子可得等于 “两个女儿” 的份额, 因此没有儿子而有两个女儿的情况下可得三分之二, 即等于经文明确说明给三个女儿相同的份额。因此, 这节经文的结构表明, 如果死者有两个女儿而没有儿子, 她们像有三个女儿的情况那样也可得三分之二的遗产。假如 «古兰经» 的这一句并不指两个女儿应得的份额, 那么, 这句用字就应该像这样, “一个男人应得一个女人两倍的份额”, 而不是像现在那样的句子。关于双亲的份额经文中谈了三种情况: (1) 如果一个人死了留下一个或几个儿女, 那么, 父母亲中每个人应得六分之一。(2) 如果一个人死后无儿女, 他的父母是惟一继承人 (死者没有妻子或丈夫), 那么, 母亲应得三分之一的财产, 其馀的三分之二归父亲所有。(3) 还有第三种情况, 实际上是第二种情况的例外。一个人死后无嗣, 他的父母亲是惟一的继承人, 但他有兄弟姐妹, 那么, 虽然他的兄弟姐妹不能继承他的财产, 但他们的存在会影响他父母亲的份额, 因为, 在这种情况下, 母亲将得六分之一 (不是像第二种情况那样得三份之一), 其余的六分之五归父亲所有。父亲在这种情况下被授予较大的份额的理由是, 父亲还要负担死者兄弟姐妹的生活。关于继承权的这一论题, 在随后的经文中继续谈下去。
b
4:177.
494
Important Words:
ابویه (his parents) is really ابوینه, the letter ن being dropped owing to اضافة. The word ابوین is the genitive of ابوان which is the dual form of اب which is originally ابو meaning, father or grandfather or any male ancestor or paternal uncle. ابوانliterally meaning "two fathers" signifies "father and mother" (Lane).
ولد (child) is very general in its significance meaning: (1) a child, son, daughter or a young one; (2) children, sons, daughters, offspring or young ones. Thus the word is used both as singular and plural, feminine and masculine (Lane).
Commentary:
This and the succeeding verse combined with the last verse of the Surah give the Islamic law of inheritance in a nutshell.
Islam prescribes suitable shares for all near relatives in the property of a deceased person without distinction of sex or order of birth. Children, parents, husbands and wives are the principal heirs who, if alive, get suitable shares in all circumstances, other relations having a title only in special cases. A male has been given double the share of a female because he has been made responsible for the maintenance of the family (Ma‘ani, vol. ii, p. 32).
The Islamic law of inheritance is perfect and it safeguards against all evils that result from laws prescribed by, or in vogue in, other faiths and communities. It aims at a fair distribution of wealth and equal chances of progress for all. To give the property of a deceased parent to the firstborn son only or to exclude the female members from inheritance or to disinherit parents in the presence of children has proved a veritable curse for society in many ways—moral, social and economic. The Islamic law of inheritance, reinforced by the system of Zakah (prescribed alms) and by the injunction prohibiting the giving and taking of interest, provides a golden mean between capitalism and communism—the two evil extremes of the present-day economic system.
The verse begins by laying down a general rule as to the proportion of shares between sons and daughters. A son is to have as much as two daughters. So wherever there are both sons and daughters, this rule will come in force. When, however, there are only daughters and no son, the verse allots two-thirds of the legacy to the daughters if there are more than two of them, and one-half if there is only one. The share of daughters, in case there are two, is not expressly stated. But the use of the conjunction فا (but) in the clause, but if there be females only, numbering more than two, clearly points to the fact that the share of two females has been referred to in the preceding words "two females". Moreover, the share of two females can be gathered from what has already been said in the beginning of the verse about the ratio between the shares of the males and the females. According to that ratio, a son is to get as much as two daughters. Thus, if there be one son and one daughter, the son will have two-thirds. But as the share of one son has been made equal to that of "two daughters", the latter, in case there is no son, will have two-thirds, viz., the same share as has been expressly fixed for three daughters. Thus, the very construction of the verse shows that if there be two daughters and no son, they too, as in the case of three daughters, will get two-thirds. If it had not been the object of the Quran to point to the share of two daughters in the clause, it would have been something like this, "a male shall have twice as much as a female", and not as it is now.
The above meaning is corroborated by a saying of the Holy Prophet himself. It is related that when a Companion of the Holy Prophet named Sa‘d bin Rabi‘ah died in the Battle of Uhud, leaving two daughters and one widow, his brother took away the whole property, leaving nothing for the two daughters. Thereupon the widow of Sa‘d went to the Holy Prophet and said, "Here are the two daughters of Sa‘d. Their uncle has taken the whole of his property and has left nothing for them." The Holy Prophet told her to wait till God should decide the matter. Then this verse was revealed and the Prophet called upon Sa‘d’s brother to give two-thirds of Sa‘d’s property to his two daughters and one-eighth to their mother and keep the rest for himself (Tirmidhi & Dawud).
The verse speaks of three cases as regards the share of the parents: (1) If a person dies leaving one or more children, then each of his parents shall have one-sixth; (2) If a person dies issueless and his parents are the sole heirs (there being no wife or husband of the deceased person), then the mother will have one-third of the property and the remaining two-thirds will go to the father; (3) There is a third case, which is really an exception to the second case. A man dies without issue and his parents are his sole heirs, but he has brothers or sisters. Then, although his brother or sisters will not inherit from him, yet their presence will affect the share of the parents, for, in this case, the mother will have one-sixth (instead of one-third, as in the second case) and the remaining five-sixths will go to the father. The reason why the father is awarded a larger share in this case is that the father has also to support the brothers or sisters of the deceased. The subject of inheritance is continued in the succeeding verse.
b
4:177.
573
Father and mother both (Lane).
574
Walad means, (1) a child, son, daughter or a young one; (2) children, sons, daughters, offspring or young ones. The word is used both as singular and plural, feminine and masculine (Lane).
574A
The verse prescribes suitable shares for all near relatives in the property of a deceased person without distinction of sex or order of birth. Children, parents, husbands and wives are the principal heirs who, if alive, get suitable shares in all circumstances, other relations having a title only in special cases. A male has been given double the share of a female because he has been made responsible for the maintenance of his family (Ma‘ani, ii. p.32). The verse begins by laying down a general rule as to the proportion of shares between sons and daughters. A son is to have as much as two daughters. So, wherever there are both sons and daughters, this rule will come in force. When, however, there are only daughters and no son, the verse allots two- thirds of the legacy to the daughters, if there are more than two of them; and one-half if there is only one. The share of daughters in case there are two is not expressly stated. But the use of the conjunction fa’ (but) in the clause, but if there be
وَلَا تَنۡکِحُوۡا مَا نَکَحَ اٰبَآؤُکُمۡ مِّنَ النِّسَآءِ اِلَّا مَا قَدۡ سَلَفَ ۚ اِنَّہٗ کَانَ فٰحِشَۃً وَّمَقۡتًا وَّسَآءَ سَبِیۡلًا
The words do not mean that stepmothers taken as wives or two sisters taken in marriage together before this verse was revealed could be retained. What they mean is simply this that if such men repent and make amends, no harm will come to them for what unlawful acts they might have committed in the past. The past will be forgiven but the women whom it is unlawful to marry are to be divorced at once.
Important Words:
مقتا (hateful). مقته means, he hated him on account of a foul or evil action committed by him; he hated him with a violent hatred on account of a foul or evil action. مقتtherefore, means, violent hatred based on some foul or evil action; contracting marriage with the former wife of one’s father which is considered to be a most hateful act (Aqrab).
Commentary:
The clause, except what has already passed, does not mean that stepmothers taken as wives before this verse was revealed could be retained. What the words mean is simply that if such men repent and amend, no harm will come to them for what unlawful acts they might have committed in the past. The past will certainly be forgiven but the women whom it was unlawful to marry were to be divorced at once after this verse was revealed. In fact, the position of women in pre-Islamic Arabia was so degraded that men looked upon their stepmothers as part of the chattels, left by their fathers, with whom they did what they liked. Islam accorded to women inviolable rights which could not be infringed with impunity.
502
Important Words:
مقتا (hateful). مقته means, he hated him on account of a foul or evil action committed by him; he hated him with a violent hatred on account of a foul or evil action. مقتtherefore, means, violent hatred based on some foul or evil action; contracting marriage with the former wife of one’s father which is considered to be a most hateful act (Aqrab).
Commentary:
The clause, except what has already passed, does not mean that stepmothers taken as wives before this verse was revealed could be retained. What the words mean is simply that if such men repent and amend, no harm will come to them for what unlawful acts they might have committed in the past. The past will certainly be forgiven but the women whom it was unlawful to marry were to be divorced at once after this verse was revealed. In fact, the position of women in pre-Islamic Arabia was so degraded that men looked upon their stepmothers as part of the chattels, left by their fathers, with whom they did what they liked. Islam accorded to women inviolable rights which could not be infringed with impunity.
585
The words do not mean that stepmothers taken as wives or two sisters taken in marriage together before this verse was revealed could be retained. What they mean is simply this that if such men repent and make amends, no harm will come to them for what unlawful acts they might have committed in the past. The past will be forgiven but the women whom it is unlawful to marry are to be divorced at once.
وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللّٰہَ حَقَّ قَدۡرِہٖۤ اِذۡ قَالُوۡا مَاۤ اَنۡزَلَ اللّٰہُ عَلٰی بَشَرٍ مِّنۡ شَیۡءٍ ۗ قُلۡ مَنۡ اَنۡزَلَ الۡکِتٰبَ الَّذِیۡ جَآءَ بِہٖ مُوۡسٰی نُوۡرًا وَّہُدًی لِّلنَّاسِ ۖ تَجۡعَلُوۡنَہٗ قَرَاطِیۡسَ تُبۡدُوۡنَہَا وَتُخۡفُوۡنَ کَثِیۡرًا ۖ وَّعُلِّمۡتُمۡ مَّا لَمۡ تَعۡلَمُوۡۤا اَنۡتُمۡ وَلَاۤ اٰبَآؤُکُمۡ ۖ قُلِ اللّٰہُ ۖ ثُمَّ ذَرۡہُمۡ فِیۡ خَوۡضِہِمۡ یَلۡعَبُوۡنَ
22:75; 39:68.
36:16; 67:10.
The words mean, "If this Book (the Qur’an) has not been revealed by God, then who embodied in it such wise and comprehensive teachings as were known neither to you nor to your forefathers—teachings which it was beyond your power to produce. Only God could give such teachings."
The Jews have been condemned here for disclosing one part of the Torah and hiding the other part which contains prophecies and Signs about the advent of the Holy Prophet.
22:75; 39:68.
36:16; 67:10.
Commentary:
In this verse, the Quran gives the reason why there are differences in religion. Differences spring from ignorance, from a lack of true estimation or true understanding, as indicated by the words, they do not make a just estimate of Allah. Indeed, those who say that Allah has not revealed anything to any man make a very poor estimate of His attributes. To hold such a view about God is highly derogatory to His glory and most inconsistent with His attributes.
As regards religious beliefs, there were two classes of men in the days of the Holy Prophet. Firstly, there were those who denied revelation in toto. According to them, there had never been any revelation in any age. Secondly, there were those who believed that there had been revelation in the past, but that God had sent no revelation in their own age. To the first-mentioned class belonged the مشرکون (Idolaters), i.e. those who ascribed co-partners to God and worshipped idols. To the second class belonged the People of the Book. As the words, Allah has not revealed anything to any man, may mean: (1) that God has never revealed anything to any man; or (2) that He has not revealed anything to any man in the present age, so they may be ascribed to both idol-worshippers and the People of the Book. In the foregoing verses only the former were addressed, but now the latter have also been included in the address.
As regards the People of the Book, the Quran specifically states: Say, Who revealed the Book which Moses brought, a light and guidance for the people, though you treat it as scraps of paper which you show while you conceal much, i.e. you have split up the Book of Moses into parts, disclosing one part and concealing the other which contains prophecies and signs of the advent of the Holy Prophet. You deny the Quranic revelation, but your own Book contains evidence of its truth which you suppress.
The above reply, however, could not satisfy the idol-worshippers who did not believe in the Book of Moses or, for that matter, in any revealed Book. The Quran, therefore, gives them a rational answer. It says, And you have been taught that which neither you nor your fathers knew. This is an argument which is meant to prove the Divine origin of the Quran rationally and is meant not merely for the People of the Book but also for idol-worshippers. The argument may be put thus: "If this Book (the Quran) has not been revealed by God, then who embodied in it such wise and comprehensive teachings as were known neither to you nor to your forefathers—teachings which it was beyond your power to produce ? Such teachings could not proceed from a man. Only God could give such teachings."
The last words of the verse, i.e. leave them to amuse themselves with their vain discourse, do not mean that you should abandon preaching to disbelievers. The meaning is, "Tell them and make clear to them that the Quran is the Word of God, for it is superhuman and full of wisdom; but if they still persist in ridiculing it, then leave them alone while they thus amuse themselves." This injunction is similar to the one given in 6:69 above.
a
22:75; 39:68.
b
36:16; 67:10.
a
22:75; 39:68.
b
36:16; 67:10.
834
Commentary:
In this verse, the Quran gives the reason why there are differences in religion. Differences spring from ignorance, from a lack of true estimation or true understanding, as indicated by the words, they do not make a just estimate of Allah. Indeed, those who say that Allah has not revealed anything to any man make a very poor estimate of His attributes. To hold such a view about God is highly derogatory to His glory and most inconsistent with His attributes.
As regards religious beliefs, there were two classes of men in the days of the Holy Prophet. Firstly, there were those who denied revelation in toto. According to them, there had never been any revelation in any age. Secondly, there were those who believed that there had been revelation in the past, but that God had sent no revelation in their own age. To the first-mentioned class belonged the مشرکون (Idolaters), i.e. those who ascribed co-partners to God and worshipped idols. To the second class belonged the People of the Book. As the words, Allah has not revealed anything to any man, may mean: (1) that God has never revealed anything to any man; or (2) that He has not revealed anything to any man in the present age, so they may be ascribed to both idol-worshippers and the People of the Book. In the foregoing verses only the former were addressed, but now the latter have also been included in the address.
As regards the People of the Book, the Quran specifically states: Say, Who revealed the Book which Moses brought, a light and guidance for the people, though you treat it as scraps of paper which you show while you conceal much, i.e. you have split up the Book of Moses into parts, disclosing one part and concealing the other which contains prophecies and signs of the advent of the Holy Prophet. You deny the Quranic revelation, but your own Book contains evidence of its truth which you suppress.
The above reply, however, could not satisfy the idol-worshippers who did not believe in the Book of Moses or, for that matter, in any revealed Book. The Quran, therefore, gives them a rational answer. It says, And you have been taught that which neither you nor your fathers knew. This is an argument which is meant to prove the Divine origin of the Quran rationally and is meant not merely for the People of the Book but also for idol-worshippers. The argument may be put thus: "If this Book (the Quran) has not been revealed by God, then who embodied in it such wise and comprehensive teachings as were known neither to you nor to your forefathers—teachings which it was beyond your power to produce ? Such teachings could not proceed from a man. Only God could give such teachings."
The last words of the verse, i.e. leave them to amuse themselves with their vain discourse, do not mean that you should abandon preaching to disbelievers. The meaning is, "Tell them and make clear to them that the Quran is the Word of God, for it is superhuman and full of wisdom; but if they still persist in ridiculing it, then leave them alone while they thus amuse themselves." This injunction is similar to the one given in 6:69 above.
a
22:75; 39:68.
b
36:16; 67:10.
873
The words mean, "If this Book (the Qur’an) has not been revealed by God, then who embodied in it such wise and comprehensive teachings as were known neither to you nor to your forefathers—teachings which it was beyond your power to produce. Only God could give such teachings."
874
The Jews have been condemned here for disclosing one part of the Torah and hiding the other part which contains prophecies and Signs about the advent of the Holy Prophet.
قُلۡ اِنۡ کَانَ اٰبَآؤُکُمۡ وَاَبۡنَآؤُکُمۡ وَاِخۡوٰنُکُمۡ وَاَزۡوٰجُکُمۡ وَعَشِیۡرَتُکُمۡ وَاَمۡوٰلُۨ اقۡتَرَفۡتُمُوۡہَا وَتِجٰرَۃٌ تَخۡشَوۡنَ کَسَادَہَا وَمَسٰکِنُ تَرۡضَوۡنَہَاۤ اَحَبَّ اِلَیۡکُمۡ مِّنَ اللّٰہِ وَرَسُوۡلِہٖ وَجِہَادٍ فِیۡ سَبِیۡلِہٖ فَتَرَبَّصُوۡا حَتّٰی یَاۡتِیَ اللّٰہُ بِاَمۡرِہٖ ۗ وَاللّٰہُ لَا یَہۡدِی الۡقَوۡمَ الۡفٰسِقِیۡنَ
Ties of relationship and the love of kith and kin and other worldly considerations, of wealth, trade and property should not be allowed to stand in the way when a dearer relationship and a nobler cause and more vital considerations demand their sacrifice.
Commentary:
The idolaters were closely connected with Muslims by ties of blood and relationship. Muslims are plainly told in this verse that these relationships and other worldly considerations of wealth, trade and property should not be allowed to stand in the way when a dearer relationship and a nobler cause and more vital considerations demanded their sacrifice. Love of kith and kin and worldly possessions should not be permitted to hinder the Faithful from serving the cause of Islam. The judgement of God mentioned at the end of the verse came after the death of the Holy Prophet when "the disobedient people," i.e. those who had joined the fold of Islam for worldly considerations, revolted and were punished by God through Abu Bakr, the First Khalifah.
1185
Commentary:
The idolaters were closely connected with Muslims by ties of blood and relationship. Muslims are plainly told in this verse that these relationships and other worldly considerations of wealth, trade and property should not be allowed to stand in the way when a dearer relationship and a nobler cause and more vital considerations demanded their sacrifice. Love of kith and kin and worldly possessions should not be permitted to hinder the Faithful from serving the cause of Islam. The judgement of God mentioned at the end of the verse came after the death of the Holy Prophet when "the disobedient people," i.e. those who had joined the fold of Islam for worldly considerations, revolted and were punished by God through Abu Bakr, the First Khalifah.
1172
Ties of relationship and the love of kith and kin and other worldly considerations, of wealth, trade and property should not be allowed to stand in the way when a dearer relationship and a nobler cause and more vital considerations demand their sacrifice.
وَاِذَا تُتۡلٰی عَلَیۡہِمۡ اٰیٰتُنَا بَیِّنٰتٍ قَالُوۡا مَا ہٰذَاۤ اِلَّا رَجُلٌ یُّرِیۡدُ اَنۡ یَّصُدَّکُمۡ عَمَّا کَانَ یَعۡبُدُ اٰبَآؤُکُمۡ وَقَالُوۡا مَا ہٰذَاۤ اِلَّاۤ اِفۡکٌ مُّفۡتَرًی ۚ وَقَالَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا لِلۡحَقِّ لَمَّا جَآءَہُمۡ اِنۡ ہٰذَاۤ اِلَّا سِحۡرٌ مُّبِیۡنٌ
17:95; 23:25.
سِحْر کے معنے عربی زبان میں جادو کے بھی ہوتے ہیں اور دلفریب بات کے بھی۔ پس جب کفار یہ دیکھتے تھے کہ قرآن کریم میں بیان کردہ کامل سچائیاں لوگوں کے دلوں کو موہ رہی ہیں تو وہ اپنے ساتھیوں کو دھوکا دینے کے لئے یہ کہتے تھے کہ محمد رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم دھوکا دینے والے الفاظ میں کچھ باتیں کہہ دیتا ہے ورنہ ہے وہ (نَعُوْذُ بِاللّٰہ) جھوٹا۔
17:95; 23:25.
17:95; 23:25.
Commentary:
This verse sums up the subject matter of the whole Surah. The preceding verses deal with the mission of the Holy Prophet and answer the criticisms and objections of disbelievers against him. Their first objection was that the Prophet had split up the people into groups and parties and thus had sought to carve out of this chaos a new community for himself and to impose his leadership on them (v. 8). This objection was answered by a reference to the Divine practice that whenever there came a Prophet into the world, the people to whom he preached his Message naturally became split up into two hostile camps with the result that those who accepted it and followed the Prophet’s lead triumphed over their opponents and became a strong community. To this the disbelievers would retort that the Prophet could not succeed in the face of their great resources, power and numbers (v. 36). When this objection was also refuted by the argument that power and wealth belonged to God and that it was not these things but right beliefs and good actions that led to the success and prosperity of a people and that Muslims being righteous and holding right beliefs were destined to triumph over them (vv. 37-40), the disbelievers pretended to derive consolation from the false and flimsy plea that the Prophet could not succeed because three great factors worked towards his failure, viz. that he acted against the old traditions of their forefathers, that he was a liar and an impostor and that he employed unfair and deceitful means for the furtherance of his cause and held out false promises. It is to these three objections of disbelievers that the verse under comment refers.
f
17:95; 23:25.
1
سِحْر کے معنے عربی زبان میں جادو کے بھی ہوتے ہیں اور دلفریب بات کے بھی۔ پس جب کفار یہ دیکھتے تھے کہ قرآن کریم میں بیان کردہ کامل سچائیاں لوگوں کے دلوں کو موہ رہی ہیں تو وہ اپنے ساتھیوں کو دھوکا دینے کے لئے یہ کہتے تھے کہ محمد رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم دھوکا دینے والے الفاظ میں کچھ باتیں کہہ دیتا ہے ورنہ ہے وہ (نَعُوْذُ بِاللّٰہ) جھوٹا۔
c
17:95; 23:25.
3165
Commentary:
This verse sums up the subject matter of the whole Surah. The preceding verses deal with the mission of the Holy Prophet and answer the criticisms and objections of disbelievers against him. Their first objection was that the Prophet had split up the people into groups and parties and thus had sought to carve out of this chaos a new community for himself and to impose his leadership on them (v. 8). This objection was answered by a reference to the Divine practice that whenever there came a Prophet into the world, the people to whom he preached his Message naturally became split up into two hostile camps with the result that those who accepted it and followed the Prophet’s lead triumphed over their opponents and became a strong community. To this the disbelievers would retort that the Prophet could not succeed in the face of their great resources, power and numbers (v. 36). When this objection was also refuted by the argument that power and wealth belonged to God and that it was not these things but right beliefs and good actions that led to the success and prosperity of a people and that Muslims being righteous and holding right beliefs were destined to triumph over them (vv. 37-40), the disbelievers pretended to derive consolation from the false and flimsy plea that the Prophet could not succeed because three great factors worked towards his failure, viz. that he acted against the old traditions of their forefathers, that he was a liar and an impostor and that he employed unfair and deceitful means for the furtherance of his cause and held out false promises. It is to these three objections of disbelievers that the verse under comment refers.
c
17:95; 23:25.