لَبِثْتُ
Appears 2 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 2 verses containing "لَبِثْتُ".
أَوْ كَٱلَّذِى مَرَّ عَلَىٰ قَرْيَةٍ وَهِىَ خَاوِيَةٌ عَلَىٰ عُرُوشِهَا قَالَ أَنَّىٰ يُحْىِۦ هَٰذِهِ ٱللَّهُ بَعْدَ مَوْتِهَا ۖ فَأَمَاتَهُ ٱللَّهُ مِا۟ئَةَ عَامٍ ثُمَّ بَعَثَهُۥ ۖ قَالَ كَمْ لَبِثْتَ ۖ قَالَ لَبِثْتُ يَوْمًا أَوْ بَعْضَ يَوْمٍ ۖ قَالَ بَل لَّبِثْتَ مِا۟ئَةَ عَامٍ فَٱنظُرْ إِلَىٰ طَعَامِكَ وَشَرَابِكَ لَمْ يَتَسَنَّهْ ۖ وَٱنظُرْ إِلَىٰ حِمَارِكَ وَلِنَجْعَلَكَ ءَايَةً لِّلنَّاسِ ۖ وَٱنظُرْ إِلَى ٱلْعِظَامِ كَيْفَ نُنشِزُهَا ثُمَّ نَكْسُوهَا لَحْمًا ۚ فَلَمَّا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُۥ قَالَ أَعْلَمُ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىْءٍ قَدِيرٌ
23:15.
یہاں آیت میں اَوْ کا لفظ استعمال ہوا ہے جس کے عام معنے تو ’’یا‘‘ کے ہیں۔ لیکن کبھی ’’اور‘‘ کے معنے بھی دیتا ہے۔
کَالَّذِیْ میں ک کا ترجمہ ہم نے حالت کا کیا ہے۔ لیکن عام طور پر اس کے معنے ’’طرح‘‘ کے ہوتے ہیں۔ ان معنوں کومدِّنظر رکھ کر ترجمہ ہونا چاہیے تھا ’’اس شخص کی طرح‘‘ لیکن ہم نے ترجمہ کیا ہے ’’اس شخص کی مثل‘‘ اور یہ معنے بھی جائز ہیں۔ چنانچہ علامہ ابن ہشام لکھتے ہیں وَ اَمَّا الْکَافُ الْاِسْمِیَّۃُ الْجَارَّۃُ فَمُرَادِفَۃٌ لِّمِثْل یعنی ایک کاف اسمیّہ ہوتا ہے جو جرّ دیتا ہے اور اس کے معنے مثل یعنی مشابہ کے ہوتے ہیں (مُغْنی اللَّبِیب)
پہلے حضرت ابراہیم علیہ السلام کی ایک بحث کا ذکر کیا۔ پھر بعد کی آیات میں ایک مردہ شہر کا ذکر کیا۔ یہ اس بات کا ثبوت ہے کہ جو میں نے اوپر دلیل دی ہے وہی ٹھیک ہے یعنی حضرت ابراہیم علیہ السلام نے اپنے مخالف سے حیات فردی کا ذکر نہیں کیا تھا بلکہ حیات قومی یا جنسی کا ذکر کیا تھا۔ کیونکہ یہ مثال جو اب بیان کی گئی ہے اس میں حیات قومی یا جنسی کا ذکر ہے۔ حیات فردی کا ذکر نہیں۔
خَاوِیَۃٌ: خَوٰی یَخْوِیْ خَوَائٌ سے نکلا ہے کہتے ہیں خَوَی الْبَیْتُ: سَقَطَ وَ تَھَدَّمَ گھر کر گیا۔ نیز فَرَغَ وَ خَلَا گھر خالی ہو گیا۔ ویران ہو گیا (اقرب) پس جملہ کے یہ معنے ہوئے کہ وہ شہر اپنی چھتوں پر گرا ہوا تھا یعنی پہلے چھتیں گریں پھر ان پر دیواریں گر گئیں۔ بعض نے ’’خالی ہو گیا‘‘ کے معنے کرکے عَلٰی عُرُوْشِھَا سے پہلے ایک اور ساقط محذوف نکالا ہے یعنی شہر خالی تھا اور اپنی چھتوں پر گرا ہوا تھا۔ دونوں معنے درست ہیں لمبی ویرانی پر دلالت کرنے کے لئے یہ الفاظ استعمال ہوئے ہیں کیونکہ جو مکان عدم استعمال کی وجہ سے گریں بالعموم پہلے ان
بَلْ حرف ہے جو اِضْرَاب کے معنے دیتا ہے یعنی بات کو پھیر کر دوسری طرف لے جانا۔ یہ اِضْرَاب دو طرح کا ہوتا ہے ایک تو انکار کی غرض سے ہوتا ہے جیسے قرآن کریم میں ہے۔ وَ قَالُوا اتَّخَذَ الرَّحْمٰنُ وَلَدًا سُبْحَانَہٗ بَلْ عِبَادٌ مُّکْرَمُوْنَ (انبیاء: ۲۷) یعنی پہلی بات غلط ہے۔ حقیقت یہ ہے کہ جن کو خدا کا بیٹا کہتے ہیں وہ اللہ کے معزز بندے ہیں اور دوسری اقسام اضراب کی یہ ہے کہ ایک غرض سے دوسری غرض کی طرف مضمون کو پھیرنا مقصود ہوتا ہے۔ بَل سے پہلے جملہ کی تردید مدنظر نہیں ہوتی۔ جیسے قران کریم میں ہے قَدْ اَفْلَح مَنْ تَزَکّٰی وَ ذَکَرَ اسْمَ رَبِ
قَرْیَۃ سے مراد یوروشلم ہے جسے بخت نصر نے تباہ کر دیا تھا۔ وہ آدمی جو یوروشلم کے پاس سے گذرا حزقیل نبی تھا۔ اللہ تعالیٰ نے کشف کے ذریعہ سے ان پر ظاہر کیا کہ ایک سو سال تک یہ شہر دوبارہ آباد ہو جائے گا۔ (حزقیل کے کشف کے لئے دیکھیں پرانا عہدنامہ حزقیل باب۳۷)
23:15.
The ruined town referred to in the verse is Jerusalem which was laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon in 599 B.C. Ezekiel, the Prophet, was among the Jews whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away into captivity to Babylon and who was made to pass by, and witness the ghastly sight of, the devastated town.
Ezekiel was naturally shocked at the sad sight and prayed to God in words full of extreme pathos as to when the ruined town would be restored to life. His prayer was heard and he was made to see a vision that the restoration prayed for would take place in a hundred years. The verse does not mean that Ezekiel remained actually dead for a hundred years. Only he saw a vision that he had died and had remained dead for a hundred years and then had come back to life. The Qur’an sometimes mentions scenes seen in a vision as having actually taken place without stating that they were witnessed in a vision or dream (12:5). The vision signified, and Ezekiel understood the significance, that the Children of Israel would remain in the state of captivity and complete national degradation for about a hundred years after which they would receive a new life and would come back to their sacred city. And it actually came to pass as Ezekiel had dreamt. Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar in 599 B.C. (2 Kings 24: 10). Ezek
The words are intended to express indefiniteness of time (18:20 & 23:114) and mean, according to the Quranic usage, that Ezekiel did not know how long he had remained in that state. Yaum here does not mean a day of 24 hours but time absolutely (see 1:4). The words, I have remained a day or part of a day, may also refer to the time for which Ezekiel slept or the time he took in seeing the vision. Apparently Ezekiel thought that he was being asked about the duration of the time of the vision.
Bal is a particle of digression signifying (a) the cancellation of what precedes as in 21:27, or (b) transition from one object of discourse to another as in 87:17. Here bal has been used in the latter sense.
The clause, It is so but thou hast also remained in this state for a hundred years, points out that although in one sense Ezekiel had remained in that state for a hundred years (for he had dreamt that he had been dead for a hundred years), yet the statement that he had tarried for a day or part of a day was also correct, for the actual time spent in seeing the vision was naturally very short.
To bring home this fact to the mind of Ezekiel, God directed his attention to his food and drink and his ass. That his food and drink had not rotted and his ass was still alive showed that he had really tarried only for a day or part of it. The words, look at thy ass, also indicate that Ezekiel saw the vision while sleeping in the fields with his ass by his side, for while in captivity, the Israelites were made to work in the fields as farmers.
Ezekiel represented in his person the whole Jewish nation. His symbolic death for a hundred years represented their national degradation and sorrows in captivity, for that was the period after which they came to their own. This is how Ezekiel became a Sign. See also Ezekiel, chap. 37.
23:15.
Important Word:
خاویة (fallen) is derived from خوی. They say خوی البیت i.e. (1) the house fell down in ruins; (2) the house became empty and untenanted (Aqrab).
عروش (roofs) is the plural of عرش (roof). They say عرش i.e. he built a house. عرش البیت means, he raised the roof of the house. عرش means: (1) the roof of a house; (2) the throne or the ceremonious chair of a king; (3) the pillar, etc. supporting a thing; (4) honour and prowess; (5) leaders and chiefs among men; (6) tent, canopy, shed etc. affordingshade; (7) trellis supporting vines (Aqrab & Lane).
یتسنه (have rotted) is derived from سنه i.e. (1) it passed through a time extending over years; (2) it (food, etc.) became altered and rotten by the lapse of years or absolutely. تسنه gives the same meaning as سنه (Aqrab).
Commentary:
The preceding verse contained one illustration of how Allah brings His friends out of darkness into light. The present verse cites, as hinted in the words, or like him, another illustration of how He breathes new life into a people after they have fallen and become degraded.
The ruined town referred to in the verse is Jerusalem which was laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar. The person who, as the verse says, passed by it was Ezekiel, the Prophet; and the words which had fallen down upon its roofs hint that it was soon after its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar that Ezekiel passed by the town. Ezekiel was among the Israelite captives whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away to Babylon and who, in accordance with an ancient custom, were made to pass by the ruins of the town so that they might witness with their own eyes how their city had been laid in ruins by the conqueror. Ezekiel, who was a great well-wisher of his people, was immensely pained to see the ruins of the sacred city and pathetically asked God when the time would come when the ruined city would be restored to life, i.e. when its inhabitants, the children of Israel, would come back to it, rebuild it and make it prosperous once more. This prayer, it appears, was heard by God Who showed him in a vision that the restoration asked for would come in a hundred years.
The clause then Allah caused him to die for a hundred years does not mean that Ezekiel was actually made to die and then raised to life again. It was, in fact, a vision which Ezekiel saw (Ezek. 37). The Quran sometimes mentions scenes seen in a vision as if they had actually happened, without stating that they were witnessed in a vision or a dream (e.g. 12:5). What actually happened was that Ezekiel saw in a vision that he had died and remained dead for a hundred years and then had come back to life. As he was the representative of his people, his death signified the death of the Israelites. Thus God informed him through this vision that the children of Israel would remain in their state of captivity and lifelessness for a hundred years, after which a new life would be given them and they would return to inhabit their sacred city. And this dream or vision actually turned out to be true. For Jerusalem was first invaded by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C. and again in 587 B.C., when after a long siege the city was totally destroyed by his general in 586 B.C. Ezekiel probably saw the vision in 586 B.C. The city was rebuilt about 100 years after its destruction and thus the vision came true.
It is wrong to think that God actually caused Ezekiel to die and that he remained dead for a hundred years and was then brought back to life; for that would have been no answer to his prayer, which did not pertain to the death and resurrection of any individual but to that of a town which was lying in ruins.
The words, which had fallen down upon its roofs; point out that Ezekiel saw the ruins soon after the destruction (not necessarily the complete and final destruction) of the town when the fallen roofs were still to be seen under the debris of the walls.
The words, I have remained a day or part of a day, are intended to express indefiniteness of time and mean, according to the Quranic usage, that Ezekiel did not know how long he had remained in that state. The words have been used in this sense in another passage of the Quran as well: They said, We have tarried a day or part of a day. Others said, Your Lord knows best the time you have tarried (18:20). Again, They will say, We tarried a day or part of a day, but ask those who keep count (23:114). In fact, یوم (day) here does not mean a day of 24 or 12 hours but time absolutely (see 1:4). The clause, I have remained a day or part of a day, may also refer to the time for which Ezekiel slept or the time he took in seeing the vision or the dream. Apparently Ezekiel thought that he was being asked about the duration of the time of the vision.
The clause, Nay, thou hast remained in this state for a hundred years, points out that although in one sense he had remained in that state for a hundred years (for he had dreamt that he had been dead for a hundred years), yet the statement that he had tarried for a day or part of a day, was also correct, for the time spent in seeing the vision was naturally very short. To bring home this fact to the mind of Ezekiel, God directed his attention to his food and drink and to the ass. That his food and drink had not become stale and that his ass was still alive, showed that he had really tarried only for a short time. The words and look at thy ass also indicate that Ezekiel saw the vision while sleeping in his fields with his ass by his side, for while in captivity the Israelites were made to work in the fields as farmers.
The words that We may make thee a Sign unto men show that Ezekiel was to be made a Sign to men inasmuch as his vision, according to which Jerusalem was to become re-inhabited by the children of Israel, was to come true. The words, look at the bones, are intended to echo the words used by the children of Israel in those days of misery, viz. that they had become like dry bones and there was no hope of their being ever endued with new life (Ezek. 37:11, 12). The words along with the accompanying clause meant that God had power to clothe the bones with flesh and to breathe new life into them. The bones were first to be set or placed in position and thereafter clothed with flesh, i.e. the Israelites, then like dead bones, were first to be brought back to their town and then the process of the clothing of the bones with flesh, i.e. the rebuilding of the town, etc. was to be completed.
The vision of Ezekiel has been mentioned in the Bible in chapter 37 of his book.
a
23:15.
1
یہاں آیت میں اَوْ کا لفظ استعمال ہوا ہے جس کے عام معنے تو ’’یا‘‘ کے ہیں۔ لیکن کبھی ’’اور‘‘ کے معنے بھی دیتا ہے۔
2
کَالَّذِیْ میں ک کا ترجمہ ہم نے حالت کا کیا ہے۔ لیکن عام طور پر اس کے معنے ’’طرح‘‘ کے ہوتے ہیں۔ ان معنوں کومدِّنظر رکھ کر ترجمہ ہونا چاہیے تھا ’’اس شخص کی طرح‘‘ لیکن ہم نے ترجمہ کیا ہے ’’اس شخص کی مثل‘‘ اور یہ معنے بھی جائز ہیں۔ چنانچہ علامہ ابن ہشام لکھتے ہیں وَ اَمَّا الْکَافُ الْاِسْمِیَّۃُ الْجَارَّۃُ فَمُرَادِفَۃٌ لِّمِثْل یعنی ایک کاف اسمیّہ ہوتا ہے جو جرّ دیتا ہے اور اس کے معنے مثل یعنی مشابہ کے ہوتے ہیں (مُغْنی اللَّبِیب)
3
پہلے حضرت ابراہیم علیہ السلام کی ایک بحث کا ذکر کیا۔ پھر بعد کی آیات میں ایک مردہ شہر کا ذکر کیا۔ یہ اس بات کا ثبوت ہے کہ جو میں نے اوپر دلیل دی ہے وہی ٹھیک ہے یعنی حضرت ابراہیم علیہ السلام نے اپنے مخالف سے حیات فردی کا ذکر نہیں کیا تھا بلکہ حیات قومی یا جنسی کا ذکر کیا تھا۔ کیونکہ یہ مثال جو اب بیان کی گئی ہے اس میں حیات قومی یا جنسی کا ذکر ہے۔ حیات فردی کا ذکر نہیں۔
4
خَاوِیَۃٌ: خَوٰی یَخْوِیْ خَوَائٌ سے نکلا ہے کہتے ہیں خَوَی الْبَیْتُ: سَقَطَ وَ تَھَدَّمَ گھر کر گیا۔ نیز فَرَغَ وَ خَلَا گھر خالی ہو گیا۔ ویران ہو گیا (اقرب) پس جملہ کے یہ معنے ہوئے کہ وہ شہر اپنی چھتوں پر گرا ہوا تھا یعنی پہلے چھتیں گریں پھر ان پر دیواریں گر گئیں۔ بعض نے ’’خالی ہو گیا‘‘ کے معنے کرکے عَلٰی عُرُوْشِھَا سے پہلے ایک اور ساقط محذوف نکالا ہے یعنی شہر خالی تھا اور اپنی چھتوں پر گرا ہوا تھا۔ دونوں معنے درست ہیں لمبی ویرانی پر دلالت کرنے کے لئے یہ الفاظ استعمال ہوئے ہیں کیونکہ جو مکان عدم استعمال کی وجہ سے گریں بالعموم پہلے ان
5
بَلْ حرف ہے جو اِضْرَاب کے معنے دیتا ہے یعنی بات کو پھیر کر دوسری طرف لے جانا۔ یہ اِضْرَاب دو طرح کا ہوتا ہے ایک تو انکار کی غرض سے ہوتا ہے جیسے قرآن کریم میں ہے۔ وَ قَالُوا اتَّخَذَ الرَّحْمٰنُ وَلَدًا سُبْحَانَہٗ بَلْ عِبَادٌ مُّکْرَمُوْنَ (انبیاء: ۲۷) یعنی پہلی بات غلط ہے۔ حقیقت یہ ہے کہ جن کو خدا کا بیٹا کہتے ہیں وہ اللہ کے معزز بندے ہیں اور دوسری اقسام اضراب کی یہ ہے کہ ایک غرض سے دوسری غرض کی طرف مضمون کو پھیرنا مقصود ہوتا ہے۔ بَل سے پہلے جملہ کی تردید مدنظر نہیں ہوتی۔ جیسے قران کریم میں ہے قَدْ اَفْلَح مَنْ تَزَکّٰی وَ ذَکَرَ اسْمَ رَبِ
6
قَرْیَۃ سے مراد یوروشلم ہے جسے بخت نصر نے تباہ کر دیا تھا۔ وہ آدمی جو یوروشلم کے پاس سے گذرا حزقیل نبی تھا۔ اللہ تعالیٰ نے کشف کے ذریعہ سے ان پر ظاہر کیا کہ ایک سو سال تک یہ شہر دوبارہ آباد ہو جائے گا۔ (حزقیل کے کشف کے لئے دیکھیں پرانا عہدنامہ حزقیل باب۳۷)
a
23:15.
266
Important Word:
خاویة (fallen) is derived from خوی. They say خوی البیت i.e. (1) the house fell down in ruins; (2) the house became empty and untenanted (Aqrab).
عروش (roofs) is the plural of عرش (roof). They say عرش i.e. he built a house. عرش البیت means, he raised the roof of the house. عرش means: (1) the roof of a house; (2) the throne or the ceremonious chair of a king; (3) the pillar, etc. supporting a thing; (4) honour and prowess; (5) leaders and chiefs among men; (6) tent, canopy, shed etc. affordingshade; (7) trellis supporting vines (Aqrab & Lane).
یتسنه (have rotted) is derived from سنه i.e. (1) it passed through a time extending over years; (2) it (food, etc.) became altered and rotten by the lapse of years or absolutely. تسنه gives the same meaning as سنه (Aqrab).
Commentary:
The preceding verse contained one illustration of how Allah brings His friends out of darkness into light. The present verse cites, as hinted in the words, or like him, another illustration of how He breathes new life into a people after they have fallen and become degraded.
The ruined town referred to in the verse is Jerusalem which was laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar. The person who, as the verse says, passed by it was Ezekiel, the Prophet; and the words which had fallen down upon its roofs hint that it was soon after its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar that Ezekiel passed by the town. Ezekiel was among the Israelite captives whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away to Babylon and who, in accordance with an ancient custom, were made to pass by the ruins of the town so that they might witness with their own eyes how their city had been laid in ruins by the conqueror. Ezekiel, who was a great well-wisher of his people, was immensely pained to see the ruins of the sacred city and pathetically asked God when the time would come when the ruined city would be restored to life, i.e. when its inhabitants, the children of Israel, would come back to it, rebuild it and make it prosperous once more. This prayer, it appears, was heard by God Who showed him in a vision that the restoration asked for would come in a hundred years.
The clause then Allah caused him to die for a hundred years does not mean that Ezekiel was actually made to die and then raised to life again. It was, in fact, a vision which Ezekiel saw (Ezek. 37). The Quran sometimes mentions scenes seen in a vision as if they had actually happened, without stating that they were witnessed in a vision or a dream (e.g. 12:5). What actually happened was that Ezekiel saw in a vision that he had died and remained dead for a hundred years and then had come back to life. As he was the representative of his people, his death signified the death of the Israelites. Thus God informed him through this vision that the children of Israel would remain in their state of captivity and lifelessness for a hundred years, after which a new life would be given them and they would return to inhabit their sacred city. And this dream or vision actually turned out to be true. For Jerusalem was first invaded by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C. and again in 587 B.C., when after a long siege the city was totally destroyed by his general in 586 B.C. Ezekiel probably saw the vision in 586 B.C. The city was rebuilt about 100 years after its destruction and thus the vision came true.
It is wrong to think that God actually caused Ezekiel to die and that he remained dead for a hundred years and was then brought back to life; for that would have been no answer to his prayer, which did not pertain to the death and resurrection of any individual but to that of a town which was lying in ruins.
The words, which had fallen down upon its roofs; point out that Ezekiel saw the ruins soon after the destruction (not necessarily the complete and final destruction) of the town when the fallen roofs were still to be seen under the debris of the walls.
The words, I have remained a day or part of a day, are intended to express indefiniteness of time and mean, according to the Quranic usage, that Ezekiel did not know how long he had remained in that state. The words have been used in this sense in another passage of the Quran as well: They said, We have tarried a day or part of a day. Others said, Your Lord knows best the time you have tarried (18:20). Again, They will say, We tarried a day or part of a day, but ask those who keep count (23:114). In fact, یوم (day) here does not mean a day of 24 or 12 hours but time absolutely (see 1:4). The clause, I have remained a day or part of a day, may also refer to the time for which Ezekiel slept or the time he took in seeing the vision or the dream. Apparently Ezekiel thought that he was being asked about the duration of the time of the vision.
The clause, Nay, thou hast remained in this state for a hundred years, points out that although in one sense he had remained in that state for a hundred years (for he had dreamt that he had been dead for a hundred years), yet the statement that he had tarried for a day or part of a day, was also correct, for the time spent in seeing the vision was naturally very short. To bring home this fact to the mind of Ezekiel, God directed his attention to his food and drink and to the ass. That his food and drink had not become stale and that his ass was still alive, showed that he had really tarried only for a short time. The words and look at thy ass also indicate that Ezekiel saw the vision while sleeping in his fields with his ass by his side, for while in captivity the Israelites were made to work in the fields as farmers.
The words that We may make thee a Sign unto men show that Ezekiel was to be made a Sign to men inasmuch as his vision, according to which Jerusalem was to become re-inhabited by the children of Israel, was to come true. The words, look at the bones, are intended to echo the words used by the children of Israel in those days of misery, viz. that they had become like dry bones and there was no hope of their being ever endued with new life (Ezek. 37:11, 12). The words along with the accompanying clause meant that God had power to clothe the bones with flesh and to breathe new life into them. The bones were first to be set or placed in position and thereafter clothed with flesh, i.e. the Israelites, then like dead bones, were first to be brought back to their town and then the process of the clothing of the bones with flesh, i.e. the rebuilding of the town, etc. was to be completed.
The vision of Ezekiel has been mentioned in the Bible in chapter 37 of his book.
a
23:15.
322
The ruined town referred to in the verse is Jerusalem which was laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon in 599 B.C. Ezekiel, the Prophet, was among the Jews whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away into captivity to Babylon and who was made to pass by, and witness the ghastly sight of, the devastated town.
323
Ezekiel was naturally shocked at the sad sight and prayed to God in words full of extreme pathos as to when the ruined town would be restored to life. His prayer was heard and he was made to see a vision that the restoration prayed for would take place in a hundred years. The verse does not mean that Ezekiel remained actually dead for a hundred years. Only he saw a vision that he had died and had remained dead for a hundred years and then had come back to life. The Qur’an sometimes mentions scenes seen in a vision as having actually taken place without stating that they were witnessed in a vision or dream (12:5). The vision signified, and Ezekiel understood the significance, that the Children of Israel would remain in the state of captivity and complete national degradation for about a hundred years after which they would receive a new life and would come back to their sacred city. And it actually came to pass as Ezekiel had dreamt. Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar in 599 B.C. (2 Kings 24: 10). Ezek
323A
The words are intended to express indefiniteness of time (18:20 & 23:114) and mean, according to the Quranic usage, that Ezekiel did not know how long he had remained in that state. Yaum here does not mean a day of 24 hours but time absolutely (see 1:4). The words, I have remained a day or part of a day, may also refer to the time for which Ezekiel slept or the time he took in seeing the vision. Apparently Ezekiel thought that he was being asked about the duration of the time of the vision.
323B
Bal is a particle of digression signifying (a) the cancellation of what precedes as in 21:27, or (b) transition from one object of discourse to another as in 87:17. Here bal has been used in the latter sense.
324
The clause, It is so but thou hast also remained in this state for a hundred years, points out that although in one sense Ezekiel had remained in that state for a hundred years (for he had dreamt that he had been dead for a hundred years), yet the statement that he had tarried for a day or part of a day was also correct, for the actual time spent in seeing the vision was naturally very short.
325
To bring home this fact to the mind of Ezekiel, God directed his attention to his food and drink and his ass. That his food and drink had not rotted and his ass was still alive showed that he had really tarried only for a day or part of it. The words, look at thy ass, also indicate that Ezekiel saw the vision while sleeping in the fields with his ass by his side, for while in captivity, the Israelites were made to work in the fields as farmers.
326
Ezekiel represented in his person the whole Jewish nation. His symbolic death for a hundred years represented their national degradation and sorrows in captivity, for that was the period after which they came to their own. This is how Ezekiel became a Sign. See also Ezekiel, chap. 37.
قُل لَّوْ شَآءَ ٱللَّهُ مَا تَلَوْتُهُۥ عَلَيْكُمْ وَلَآ أَدْرَىٰكُم بِهِۦ ۖ فَقَدْ لَبِثْتُ فِيكُمْ عُمُرًا مِّن قَبْلِهِۦٓ ۚ أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ
这节经文概括了一种绝对正确的标准以检验先知品位宣称的真理。如果一位先知在宣称先知品位之前的生活真实性的标准一贯是非常非常高的, 而且在那个时期和他宣称先知品位之间的一段时间内看来他的崇高而完美的道德标准从未降低过, 那么, 他的先知品位的宣称必须以一个高度诚实和有道德的人而被接受。很自然, 如果一个人通过习惯或个性在一个一定长的行为过程中得到了证实, 花了一段很长的时间在他身上形成一种或者向好的或者向坏的方面发展的主要变化, 那么, 伊斯兰教的先知在他宣称先知品位以前的一生中一直是个极为正直的人, 如何能突然变成一个骗子?
یعنی موجودہ قرآن کی تعلیم کو۔
یعنی کیا تم میری گذشتہ زندگی کو نہیں دیکھتے کہ خداتعالیٰ تو الگ رہا‘ میں انسان کے متعلق بھی کوئی جھوٹی بات نہیں کہتا تھا۔
The verse embodies an infallible criterion to test the truth of a claimant to Prophethood. If the life of a Prophet before he lays claim to Prophethood presents an extraordinarily high standard of truthfulness and integrity and between that period and his claim to Prophethood there is no interval during which it might be supposed that he has fallen from that high standard of moral excellence, then his claim to Prophethood must be accepted as that of a highly moral and truthful man. Naturally, a person confirmed in a certain course of conduct through habit or temperament takes a long time to develop in himself a major change for either good or evil. How then could the Prophet of Islam suddenly turn into an impostor when all his lifetime before his claim to Prophethood he had been a singularly upright man?
Commentary:
The argument against the abrogation theory which was begun in the previous verse is continued in the present one. Such commandments may be abrogated as are needed only for a particular time, the commandments changing with the change of circumstances. But, if any commandments were to be changed without any change having taken place in the circumstances of men, then it would be a proof of the fact that such commandments were misplaced and their promulgation quite useless.
It is regarding this fact that the Holy Prophet is made to say to the disbelievers "If the teachings given by me had not been useful and some other teachings had been more adapted to bring about a change in you, then I would not have delivered these teachings to you, neither would God have revealed them to me."
The words, I have indeed lived among you a whole lifetime before this. Will you not then understand?, embody a great criterion to test the truth of a claimant to prophethood. The Holy Prophet is here asked to refer disbelievers to the period of life he had already passed among them as proof of his sincerity and the truth of his claims. If the period of his life before he claimed to be a Prophet had presented an extraordinarily high standard of truthfulness and integrity and between that period and his claim to prophethood there was no interval during which it might be supposed that he had fallen from that high standard of moral excellence, his claim to prophethood must be accepted as coming from a highly moral and truthful man. When even the Prophet’s opponents admitted that all his lifetime he had been a singularly upright man and had even won from them the title of al-Amin (the Trustworthy) on account of his unimpeachable integrity, he could not suddenly turn an impostor. How was it possible that one who was the most upright and righteous of men a day before should have become a hardened liar the next day (for there is no greater liar than he who forges lies about God). Naturally a person confirmed in a certain course of conduct through habit or temperament takes a long time to develop in himself a major change for either good or evil. How then could the Prophet of Islam suddenly turn into an impostor? There never was a time when the Prophet’s life was hidden from the gaze of his compatriots. He was a resident of Mecca, belonged to a well-known Meccan tribe, and was popularly known in the city as الامین (the Truthful). In view of these established historical facts, the Quran, as it were, says to the disbelievers, "You ascribe to Our Messenger the most heinous of all lies, viz. forging lies against God, but you cannot produce any evidence to show when this change for the worse developed in him. On the contrary, you admit that right up to the time when he claimed to be a Prophet, he continued to live among you day and night; and you looked upon him as an exceptionally righteous and truthful man. How then can you now say that all of a sudden he has begun to forge lies against God?"
The words, before this, are intended to point to the great psychological fact that the objections of the Holy Prophet’senemies after he laid claim to prophethood should carry no weight with right-thinking people, because it always happens that after a person has announced himself to be a Messenger of God, people naturally turn against him and begin to impute to him all sorts of evil things. The fact that the Emperor Heraclius asked of Abu Sufyan, when the latter was brought before him at Jerusalem, what his people thought of the Prophet before he laid claim to prophethood, also shows that he too had realized the force of this great argument.
The words, Will you not then understand?, draw our attention to the established psychological truth that a sudden change does not come upon a man except either (1) through some physical injury, etc. (for instance when a man happens to receive a blow on the head causing loss of memory or change in manners, etc.) or (2) through some great spiritual influence. History provides instances when a great shock or calamity has made a person give way to despair and thereby inclined him to evil or when the discovery of some great truth has created a sudden change in him for good. A study of the life history of the Holy Prophet shows that he had never been subject to either of these two influences. Before his exaltation to prophethood, he led a life of retirement, giving himself up to prayer and meditation. At the same time he had not despaired of his countrymen but, like a true well-wisher, earnestly worked for their good. In such circumstances it is an insult to human reason and to all known laws of human psychology to say that though before he claimed to be a Messenger of God the Prophet of Islam was a model of piety and righteousness, yet the very day he made that claim he became the greatest of liars.
For a discussion of the "illiteracy" of the Holy Prophet see under 7:158.
585
这节经文概括了一种绝对正确的标准以检验先知品位宣称的真理。如果一位先知在宣称先知品位之前的生活真实性的标准一贯是非常非常高的, 而且在那个时期和他宣称先知品位之间的一段时间内看来他的崇高而完美的道德标准从未降低过, 那么, 他的先知品位的宣称必须以一个高度诚实和有道德的人而被接受。很自然, 如果一个人通过习惯或个性在一个一定长的行为过程中得到了证实, 花了一段很长的时间在他身上形成一种或者向好的或者向坏的方面发展的主要变化, 那么, 伊斯兰教的先知在他宣称先知品位以前的一生中一直是个极为正直的人, 如何能突然变成一个骗子?
1
یعنی موجودہ قرآن کی تعلیم کو۔
2
یعنی کیا تم میری گذشتہ زندگی کو نہیں دیکھتے کہ خداتعالیٰ تو الگ رہا‘ میں انسان کے متعلق بھی کوئی جھوٹی بات نہیں کہتا تھا۔
1292
Commentary:
The argument against the abrogation theory which was begun in the previous verse is continued in the present one. Such commandments may be abrogated as are needed only for a particular time, the commandments changing with the change of circumstances. But, if any commandments were to be changed without any change having taken place in the circumstances of men, then it would be a proof of the fact that such commandments were misplaced and their promulgation quite useless.
It is regarding this fact that the Holy Prophet is made to say to the disbelievers "If the teachings given by me had not been useful and some other teachings had been more adapted to bring about a change in you, then I would not have delivered these teachings to you, neither would God have revealed them to me."
The words, I have indeed lived among you a whole lifetime before this. Will you not then understand?, embody a great criterion to test the truth of a claimant to prophethood. The Holy Prophet is here asked to refer disbelievers to the period of life he had already passed among them as proof of his sincerity and the truth of his claims. If the period of his life before he claimed to be a Prophet had presented an extraordinarily high standard of truthfulness and integrity and between that period and his claim to prophethood there was no interval during which it might be supposed that he had fallen from that high standard of moral excellence, his claim to prophethood must be accepted as coming from a highly moral and truthful man. When even the Prophet’s opponents admitted that all his lifetime he had been a singularly upright man and had even won from them the title of al-Amin (the Trustworthy) on account of his unimpeachable integrity, he could not suddenly turn an impostor. How was it possible that one who was the most upright and righteous of men a day before should have become a hardened liar the next day (for there is no greater liar than he who forges lies about God). Naturally a person confirmed in a certain course of conduct through habit or temperament takes a long time to develop in himself a major change for either good or evil. How then could the Prophet of Islam suddenly turn into an impostor? There never was a time when the Prophet’s life was hidden from the gaze of his compatriots. He was a resident of Mecca, belonged to a well-known Meccan tribe, and was popularly known in the city as الامین (the Truthful). In view of these established historical facts, the Quran, as it were, says to the disbelievers, "You ascribe to Our Messenger the most heinous of all lies, viz. forging lies against God, but you cannot produce any evidence to show when this change for the worse developed in him. On the contrary, you admit that right up to the time when he claimed to be a Prophet, he continued to live among you day and night; and you looked upon him as an exceptionally righteous and truthful man. How then can you now say that all of a sudden he has begun to forge lies against God?"
The words, before this, are intended to point to the great psychological fact that the objections of the Holy Prophet’senemies after he laid claim to prophethood should carry no weight with right-thinking people, because it always happens that after a person has announced himself to be a Messenger of God, people naturally turn against him and begin to impute to him all sorts of evil things. The fact that the Emperor Heraclius asked of Abu Sufyan, when the latter was brought before him at Jerusalem, what his people thought of the Prophet before he laid claim to prophethood, also shows that he too had realized the force of this great argument.
The words, Will you not then understand?, draw our attention to the established psychological truth that a sudden change does not come upon a man except either (1) through some physical injury, etc. (for instance when a man happens to receive a blow on the head causing loss of memory or change in manners, etc.) or (2) through some great spiritual influence. History provides instances when a great shock or calamity has made a person give way to despair and thereby inclined him to evil or when the discovery of some great truth has created a sudden change in him for good. A study of the life history of the Holy Prophet shows that he had never been subject to either of these two influences. Before his exaltation to prophethood, he led a life of retirement, giving himself up to prayer and meditation. At the same time he had not despaired of his countrymen but, like a true well-wisher, earnestly worked for their good. In such circumstances it is an insult to human reason and to all known laws of human psychology to say that though before he claimed to be a Messenger of God the Prophet of Islam was a model of piety and righteousness, yet the very day he made that claim he became the greatest of liars.
For a discussion of the "illiteracy" of the Holy Prophet see under 7:158.
1245
The verse embodies an infallible criterion to test the truth of a claimant to Prophethood. If the life of a Prophet before he lays claim to Prophethood presents an extraordinarily high standard of truthfulness and integrity and between that period and his claim to Prophethood there is no interval during which it might be supposed that he has fallen from that high standard of moral excellence, then his claim to Prophethood must be accepted as that of a highly moral and truthful man. Naturally, a person confirmed in a certain course of conduct through habit or temperament takes a long time to develop in himself a major change for either good or evil. How then could the Prophet of Islam suddenly turn into an impostor when all his lifetime before his claim to Prophethood he had been a singularly upright man?