تَأْكُلُهُ ٱلنَّارُ
Appears 1 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 1 verses containing "تَأْكُلُهُ ٱلنَّارُ".
ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُوٓا۟ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَهِدَ إِلَيْنَآ أَلَّا نُؤْمِنَ لِرَسُولٍ حَتَّىٰ يَأْتِيَنَا بِقُرْبَانٍ تَأْكُلُهُ ٱلنَّارُ ۗ قُلْ قَدْ جَآءَكُمْ رُسُلٌ مِّن قَبْلِى بِٱلْبَيِّنَٰتِ وَبِٱلَّذِى قُلْتُمْ فَلِمَ قَتَلْتُمُوهُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَٰدِقِينَ
مراد یہ نہیں کہ آگ کہیں سے آکر اسے بھسم کر دیتی تھی بلکہ مراد اس قربانی سے تھی جو آگ میں جلا دی جاتی اور اسے سوختنی قربانی کہا جاتا تھا۔ ایسی قربانی کا رواج ہندوؤں، ایرانیوں اور یہود میں بہت تھا۔
5:33; 14:10; 40:84.
The verse answers the objection of the Jews about the burnt offerings by saying that the observance of the law regarding such offerings was no criterion to test the truth of a Prophet, because that could easily be done by an impostor. It was only "clear signs" that demonstrated and established the truth of a claimant. But even if observance of burnt offerings was the criterion of a true Prophet, the Jews had no right to raise an objection. The charge is driven home to them in the words, "Why did they reject those Prophets who strictly conformed to that law?"
5:33; 14:10; 40:84.
Commentary:
The enemies of truth never admit their defeat. They continue to seek new pretexts for refusing to believe in it. When the Jews were told that they had opposed the Prophets of God through covetousness (3:181-182), they retorted by saying that they did not oppose Muslims through covetousness but because, animals unlike them, the Muslims devoured even that which they offered as sacrifices, instead of burning them at the altar according to the Jewish Law (Lev. 1:11-17). Thus, it was not they but the Muslims who were greedy and covetous and they could not, therefore, consistently with the Law of Moses, accept the Prophet who did not observe that Law.
The Quran answers this objection by saying that the observance of the law about burnt offerings was no criterion to test the truth of a Prophet, because that could easily be done by an impostor. It was البینات (clear signs) only that demonstrated and established the truth of a claimant. But even if observance of burnt offerings was the criterion of a true Prophet, the Jews had no right to raise an objection; for in that case the question arose, why did they reject those Prophets who strictly conformed to that law? The fact that the Jewish demand referred to in the words, that which you speak of, has been mentioned in the verse separately from clear signs, shows that what the Jews spoke of was not a miracle, but that they were only referring to the law about burnt offerings, and not to the miracle of fire descending from heaven to consume a sacrifice, as is generally but wrongly believed.
a
5:33; 14:10; 40:84.
296
本节经文回答了犹太人反对火焚供品的理由。经文说, 遵守有关这种供品的法规绝不是考验先知的真诚的标准, 因为骗子也能轻而易举的做到这一点。只有 “明显的迹象” 才能证实宣称者的真诚。但即使遵守火焚供品是考验一个真诚的先知的标准, 犹太人也没有权利提出反对。这句话可使他们了解他们是应该谴责的; “他们为什么要否认那些严格遵守那条法规的先知?”
1
مراد یہ نہیں کہ آگ کہیں سے آکر اسے بھسم کر دیتی تھی بلکہ مراد اس قربانی سے تھی جو آگ میں جلا دی جاتی اور اسے سوختنی قربانی کہا جاتا تھا۔ ایسی قربانی کا رواج ہندوؤں، ایرانیوں اور یہود میں بہت تھا۔
b
5:33; 14:10; 40:84.
466
Commentary:
The enemies of truth never admit their defeat. They continue to seek new pretexts for refusing to believe in it. When the Jews were told that they had opposed the Prophets of God through covetousness (3:181-182), they retorted by saying that they did not oppose Muslims through covetousness but because, animals unlike them, the Muslims devoured even that which they offered as sacrifices, instead of burning them at the altar according to the Jewish Law (Lev. 1:11-17). Thus, it was not they but the Muslims who were greedy and covetous and they could not, therefore, consistently with the Law of Moses, accept the Prophet who did not observe that Law.
The Quran answers this objection by saying that the observance of the law about burnt offerings was no criterion to test the truth of a Prophet, because that could easily be done by an impostor. It was البینات (clear signs) only that demonstrated and established the truth of a claimant. But even if observance of burnt offerings was the criterion of a true Prophet, the Jews had no right to raise an objection; for in that case the question arose, why did they reject those Prophets who strictly conformed to that law? The fact that the Jewish demand referred to in the words, that which you speak of, has been mentioned in the verse separately from clear signs, shows that what the Jews spoke of was not a miracle, but that they were only referring to the law about burnt offerings, and not to the miracle of fire descending from heaven to consume a sacrifice, as is generally but wrongly believed.
a
5:33; 14:10; 40:84.
539
The verse answers the objection of the Jews about the burnt offerings by saying that the observance of the law regarding such offerings was no criterion to test the truth of a Prophet, because that could easily be done by an impostor. It was only "clear signs" that demonstrated and established the truth of a claimant. But even if observance of burnt offerings was the criterion of a true Prophet, the Jews had no right to raise an objection. The charge is driven home to them in the words, "Why did they reject those Prophets who strictly conformed to that law?"