يَتَّخِذَ
Appears 5 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 5 verses containing "يَتَّخِذَ".
قُلْ يَٰٓأَهْلَ ٱلْكِتَٰبِ تَعَالَوْا۟ إِلَىٰ كَلِمَةٍ سَوَآءٍۭ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ أَلَّا نَعْبُدَ إِلَّا ٱللَّهَ وَلَا نُشْرِكَ بِهِۦ شَيْـًٔا وَلَا يَتَّخِذَ بَعْضُنَا بَعْضًا أَرْبَابًا مِّن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ ۚ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْا۟ فَقُولُوا۟ ٱشْهَدُوا۟ بِأَنَّا مُسْلِمُونَ
9:31.
’’کم سے کم‘‘ کسی لفظ کا ترجمہ نہیں بلکہ عبارت کا مفہوم ہے۔
9:31.
This verse is wrongly considered by some to provide a basis for a compromise between Islam on the one hand and Christianity and Judaism on the other. It is argued that if these religions also teach and inculcate the doctrine of Divine Unity, then other Islamic teachings supposed to be of comparatively little importance could safely be left alone. It is unthinkable that the idea of compromise in matters of faith could ever have been encouraged, with a people who, in the immediately preceding verses, have been severely condemned for their false beliefs and who are so forcefully challenged to a prayer-contest to invoke the curse of God upon the holders of false beliefs. The Holy Prophet, while writing his missionary epistle to Heraclius, used this very verse, yet he forcefully invited the latter to accept Islam and threatened him with Divine punishment if he refused to do so (Bukhari). This shows beyond doubt that the mere fact of his believing in Divine Unity could not, according to the Holy Prophet, save He
9:31.
Important Words:
اربابا (Lords) is the plural of رب (Lord) for which see 1:2. رب means, lord, master or owner; a chief or ruler to whom obedience is rendered; one who fosters, brings up, or nourishes (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
This verse is wrongly considered by some to provide a basis for a compromise between Islam on the one hand and Christianity and Judaism on the other. It is argued that if these faiths become united in the doctrine of the Oneness of God, the verse permits the sacrifice of other Islamic teachings as being of comparatively little importance. Nothing can be farther from the truth. The Quran, the Hadith and the facts of history are all united in belying this ridiculous assumption. It is simply unthinkable that compromise in matters of faith could be allowed by any religion worth the name, particularly with a people who, in the immediately preceding verses, have been severely condemned for their beliefs and who are so forcefully challenged to a prayer contest to invoke the curse of God upon those who lie in their beliefs. The Holy Prophet, while writing his missionary epistle to Heraclius, used this very verse, yet he forcefully invited the latter to accept Islam and threatened him with Divine punishment if he refused to do so (Bukhari). This shows beyond doubt that the mere fact of his believing in the Oneness of God could not, according to the Holy Prophet, save Heraclius from God’s punishment. Elsewhere the Quran emphatically declares that, Surely the (true) religion with Allah is Islam, (i.e. complete submission); and whoso seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the life to come he shall be among the losers (3:20 & 86). Can anything be clearer?
The truth is that this verse is intended to suggest an easy and simple method by which Jews and Christians can arrive at a right decision regarding the truth of Islam. Christians, in spite of claiming belief in the Unity of Godhead, felt satisfied in believing in the divinity of Jesus; and Jews, notwithstanding their claim to be monotheists, gave blind allegiance to their priests and divines, practically placing them in the position of God Himself. The verse exhorts both these communities to come back to their original belief in the Oneness of God and give up the worship of false deities who stand in the way of their accepting Islam. Thus, instead of seeking a compromise with these faiths, the verse virtually invites Christians and Jews to the faith of Islam, by drawing their attention to the doctrine of the Oneness of God which being, at least in its outer form, the common fundamental doctrine of all, could serve as a meeting ground for further approach.
It was exactly on these lines that Ahmad, the Promised Messiah, in his "Message of Peace", made an offer to the Hindus of India to enter into an agreement with the Muslims of his way of thinking to the effect that they (Hindus) would respect and honour the Holy Prophet of Islam and would look upon him as a true Messenger of God, even as he and his followers believed in Rama and Krishna as God’s Elect.
Special emphasis has been laid in the verse under comment on the Oneness of God—a doctrine on which in theory all revealed religions seem to agree, but regarding the details, of which no two Faiths are found to concur. Most religions claim to be monotheistic; but under the outer veneer of monotheism, polytheism very often lies hidden in most hideous forms. It is the simple faith of Islam alone which is really and truly monotheistic in all its aspects and which strongly condemns the association with God of anything or any being in His person, attributes, worship or works. It is most unfortunate, however, that in spite of Islam being such a strictly monotheistic faith, a section of present-day Muslims has drifted away into the quagmire of what cannot but be termed idol-worship in the wider sense of the word.
Incidentally, it may be noted that the letter mentioned by Bukhari and other Muslim traditionists as having been addressed by the Holy Prophet to Heraclius in the words of this verse inviting him to accept Islam has recently been discovered and found to contain the exact words quoted by Bukhari (R. Rel. vol. V. No. 8). This furnishes a strong proof of the essential authenticity of Bukhari and, for that matter, of other accepted works of Hadith.
a
9:31.
2
’’کم سے کم‘‘ کسی لفظ کا ترجمہ نہیں بلکہ عبارت کا مفہوم ہے۔
a
9:31.
353
Important Words:
اربابا (Lords) is the plural of رب (Lord) for which see 1:2. رب means, lord, master or owner; a chief or ruler to whom obedience is rendered; one who fosters, brings up, or nourishes (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
This verse is wrongly considered by some to provide a basis for a compromise between Islam on the one hand and Christianity and Judaism on the other. It is argued that if these faiths become united in the doctrine of the Oneness of God, the verse permits the sacrifice of other Islamic teachings as being of comparatively little importance. Nothing can be farther from the truth. The Quran, the Hadith and the facts of history are all united in belying this ridiculous assumption. It is simply unthinkable that compromise in matters of faith could be allowed by any religion worth the name, particularly with a people who, in the immediately preceding verses, have been severely condemned for their beliefs and who are so forcefully challenged to a prayer contest to invoke the curse of God upon those who lie in their beliefs. The Holy Prophet, while writing his missionary epistle to Heraclius, used this very verse, yet he forcefully invited the latter to accept Islam and threatened him with Divine punishment if he refused to do so (Bukhari). This shows beyond doubt that the mere fact of his believing in the Oneness of God could not, according to the Holy Prophet, save Heraclius from God’s punishment. Elsewhere the Quran emphatically declares that, Surely the (true) religion with Allah is Islam, (i.e. complete submission); and whoso seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the life to come he shall be among the losers (3:20 & 86). Can anything be clearer?
The truth is that this verse is intended to suggest an easy and simple method by which Jews and Christians can arrive at a right decision regarding the truth of Islam. Christians, in spite of claiming belief in the Unity of Godhead, felt satisfied in believing in the divinity of Jesus; and Jews, notwithstanding their claim to be monotheists, gave blind allegiance to their priests and divines, practically placing them in the position of God Himself. The verse exhorts both these communities to come back to their original belief in the Oneness of God and give up the worship of false deities who stand in the way of their accepting Islam. Thus, instead of seeking a compromise with these faiths, the verse virtually invites Christians and Jews to the faith of Islam, by drawing their attention to the doctrine of the Oneness of God which being, at least in its outer form, the common fundamental doctrine of all, could serve as a meeting ground for further approach.
It was exactly on these lines that Ahmad, the Promised Messiah, in his "Message of Peace", made an offer to the Hindus of India to enter into an agreement with the Muslims of his way of thinking to the effect that they (Hindus) would respect and honour the Holy Prophet of Islam and would look upon him as a true Messenger of God, even as he and his followers believed in Rama and Krishna as God’s Elect.
Special emphasis has been laid in the verse under comment on the Oneness of God—a doctrine on which in theory all revealed religions seem to agree, but regarding the details, of which no two Faiths are found to concur. Most religions claim to be monotheistic; but under the outer veneer of monotheism, polytheism very often lies hidden in most hideous forms. It is the simple faith of Islam alone which is really and truly monotheistic in all its aspects and which strongly condemns the association with God of anything or any being in His person, attributes, worship or works. It is most unfortunate, however, that in spite of Islam being such a strictly monotheistic faith, a section of present-day Muslims has drifted away into the quagmire of what cannot but be termed idol-worship in the wider sense of the word.
Incidentally, it may be noted that the letter mentioned by Bukhari and other Muslim traditionists as having been addressed by the Holy Prophet to Heraclius in the words of this verse inviting him to accept Islam has recently been discovered and found to contain the exact words quoted by Bukhari (R. Rel. vol. V. No. 8). This furnishes a strong proof of the essential authenticity of Bukhari and, for that matter, of other accepted works of Hadith.
a
9:31.
426A
This verse is wrongly considered by some to provide a basis for a compromise between Islam on the one hand and Christianity and Judaism on the other. It is argued that if these religions also teach and inculcate the doctrine of Divine Unity, then other Islamic teachings supposed to be of comparatively little importance could safely be left alone. It is unthinkable that the idea of compromise in matters of faith could ever have been encouraged, with a people who, in the immediately preceding verses, have been severely condemned for their false beliefs and who are so forcefully challenged to a prayer-contest to invoke the curse of God upon the holders of false beliefs. The Holy Prophet, while writing his missionary epistle to Heraclius, used this very verse, yet he forcefully invited the latter to accept Islam and threatened him with Divine punishment if he refused to do so (Bukhari). This shows beyond doubt that the mere fact of his believing in Divine Unity could not, according to the Holy Prophet, save He
مَا كَانَ لِلَّهِ أَن يَتَّخِذَ مِن وَلَدٍ ۖ سُبْحَٰنَهُۥٓ ۚ إِذَا قَضَىٰٓ أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُۥ كُن فَيَكُونُ
10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.
基督教徒相信, 伊撒是安拉的儿子。他们是根据 «圣经» 称他为 “安拉的儿子” 这一设想而产生这一信念的。可是 «圣经» 中也有称呼其他人为 “安拉的儿子” 的。伊撒在这方面并没有什么特殊之处, 因此他不过是像称呼那些其他人那样的一个安拉的儿子 («路加» 20:36; «耶利米亚书» 31:9; «马太» 6:9; «约翰» 8:41和 «以弗所书» 4:6)。
在阿拉伯语中, كُنْ (Kun) 这个单词, 除了可以向一样东西说以外, 还可以用 来表达一个深切感到的愿望。有一次远征中, 穆圣的一个非常勇敢而忠实的伙伴阿布•卡撒马 (اَبُوْخَيْثَمَة, Abu Khaithamah) 恰巧不在。穆圣深切地感觉到他没在身旁。在战斗中, 他看见一个人从远处骑着马飞驰而来, 他就喊道: كُنْ اَبَا خَيْثَمَة (Kun Aba Khaithamah), 也就是说, 但愿那是阿布•卡撒马; 瞧! 真的是阿布•卡撒马 (حَلْبِيَّة, Halbiyyah)。因此, كُنْ (Kun) 这一单词可以意示, 当安拉想要一件事或东西成为现实时, 它就成为现实; 或者, 当安拉表达这样一个愿望时, 它就具体地出现在面前。这一单词并不支持这样的看法, 说灵魂和物质是和安拉永远并存的或自古就有的。
10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.
Christians believe that Jesus was God’s son. They base this belief on the assumption that the Bible calls him "son of God." But in the Bible other persons have also been called or addressed as "sons of God." Jesus enjoys no special distinction in this respect and he is, therefore, no more a son of God than those persons who have also been addressed as such (Luke, 20: 36; Jer., 31: 9; Matt., 6: 9; John, 8: 41 & Ephes., 4: 6).
In the Arabic language the word Kun, besides being addressed to a thing, is also used to express a greatly felt desire. In an expedition the Holy Prophet’s very brave and loyal Companion, Abu Khaithamah happened to be absent. The Holy Prophet keenly felt his absence. When in the midst of the battle he saw from a great distance a rider coming to him at full speed, he exclaimed Kun Aba Khaithamah, i.e. would that it were Abu Khaithamah; and lo! it was really Abu Khaithamah (Halbiyyah). So the word Kun would signify that when God desires or intends a thing to come into being, it comes into being; or when God expresses such a desire it takes a concrete form. The word lends no support to the view that soul and matter are primeval or coeternal with God.
10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.
Important Words:
ماکان للّٰه (It does not befit the Majesty of Allah). They say ماکان له i.e. (1) it does not befit him; behove him; it is inconsistent with his dignity; it is not proper for him; (2) it is beyond his power to do so. In the present verse ماکان للّٰه means, it is inconsistent with the Majesty of Allah or it does not befit His Holiness (Aqrab, Lane & Mufradat). See also 2:35.
Commentary:
The words ان یتخذ من ولد express two senses (a) that He should have a son; and (b) that He should adopt someone as His son. When it is inconsistent with God’s Majesty to adopt someone as His son, it is all the more repugnant to His Holiness and Glory to have a real son. These words repudiate the Christian belief, namely (i) that God has adopted Jesus as His son or (ii) that Jesus is God’s son.
Christians believe that Jesus was God’s son. The onus for proving such a manifestly absurd belief lies on them. They base this belief on the assumption that the Bible calls him the son of God. But in the Bible other persons have also been called or addressed as sons of God. Jesus enjoys no special prerogative in this respect and is therefore no more a son of God than those persons who have also been addressed as such.
The Bible says:
(a) "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God" (Luke 20: 36);
(b) "For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" (Jer. 31:9);
(c) "Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name" (Matt. 6:9);
(d) "For if you forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will also forgive you" (Matt. 6:14);
(e) "That your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses" (Mark 11: 25);
(f) "Your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things" (Luke 12: 30);
(g) "We have one Father, even God" (John 8: 41);
(h) "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephes. 4:6);
(i) "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn" (Exod. 4:22).
The Bible rather supports the Quranic statement, viz.it does not befit the Majesty of Allah to take unto Himself a son.He is the One Lord, God, Who has, or needs, no son.
It says:
(a) "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6:4);
(b) "I am the Lord, that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images" (Isa. 42:8);
(c) "Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12: 29);
(d) "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty" (Jude 1: 25);
(e) "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory forever and ever" (I Timothy 1: 17).
The verse under comment gives three reasons why God does not stand in need of a son:(1) if God were supposed to have a son, He must be subject to carnal desires and must have a wife to satisfy them; (2) He must be subject to decay and death because the procreation of species which the attribution of a son to God implies, is the characteristic of mortals; and (3) He must require a helper to assist Him in His work or to continue his work after His death. But God as represented by Islam is completely free from all these defects and therefore needs no son. In fact, the Christian dogma of sonship of Jesus is an insoluble riddle and beyond human comprehension. If Jesus is God’s son, then God will have to be admitted as incapable of carrying on the affairs of the universe alone and unaided, and therefore will have to be accepted as imperfect and defective. But because God is Perfect and All-Powerful, therefore He needs no son and no helper. Again, according to the Christian dogma each of the three deities, God, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, being perfect can and should carry on the work of the universe unaided and yet these three combine to do the thing which each one is able to accomplish by himself. This is absurd.
Those who are ignorant of Arabic language pretend to find in the word کن (be) a ground for their belief in the eternity and indestructibility of matter and soul. They argue in this way. This word shows that there had already existed something to which the order کن (be) was given. But in the Arabic language this word, besides being addressed to a thing, is also used to express a greatly felt desire. In an expedition the Holy Prophet’s very brave and loyal companion, Abu Khaithamah happened to be absent. The Prophet keenly felt his absence. When in the midst of the battle he saw from a great distance a rider coming to him at full speed he exclaimed کن ابا خیثمة i.e. would that it were Abu Khaithamah; and lo! it was really Abu Khaithamah (Halbiyyah). So an Arab would use the word کن when he would passionately desire a thing to happen.
According to this sense of کن the expression کن فیکون would mean that when God desires or intends that a thing should be, it comes into being or that when God expresses a desire it takes a concrete form. The words lend no support to the view that soul and matter are primeval or eternal. See also 2:117-118.
c
10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.
802
基督教徒相信, 伊撒是安拉的儿子。他们是根据 «圣经» 称他为 “安拉的儿子” 这一设想而产生这一信念的。可是 «圣经» 中也有称呼其他人为 “安拉的儿子” 的。伊撒在这方面并没有什么特殊之处, 因此他不过是像称呼那些其他人那样的一个安拉的儿子 («路加» 20:36; «耶利米亚书» 31:9; «马太» 6:9; «约翰» 8:41和 «以弗所书» 4:6)。
803
在阿拉伯语中, كُنْ (Kun) 这个单词, 除了可以向一样东西说以外, 还可以用 来表达一个深切感到的愿望。有一次远征中, 穆圣的一个非常勇敢而忠实的伙伴阿布•卡撒马 (اَبُوْخَيْثَمَة, Abu Khaithamah) 恰巧不在。穆圣深切地感觉到他没在身旁。在战斗中, 他看见一个人从远处骑着马飞驰而来, 他就喊道: كُنْ اَبَا خَيْثَمَة (Kun Aba Khaithamah), 也就是说, 但愿那是阿布•卡撒马; 瞧! 真的是阿布•卡撒马 (حَلْبِيَّة, Halbiyyah)。因此, كُنْ (Kun) 这一单词可以意示, 当安拉想要一件事或东西成为现实时, 它就成为现实; 或者, 当安拉表达这样一个愿望时, 它就具体地出现在面前。这一单词并不支持这样的看法, 说灵魂和物质是和安拉永远并存的或自古就有的。
a
10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.
2180
Important Words:
ماکان للّٰه (It does not befit the Majesty of Allah). They say ماکان له i.e. (1) it does not befit him; behove him; it is inconsistent with his dignity; it is not proper for him; (2) it is beyond his power to do so. In the present verse ماکان للّٰه means, it is inconsistent with the Majesty of Allah or it does not befit His Holiness (Aqrab, Lane & Mufradat). See also 2:35.
Commentary:
The words ان یتخذ من ولد express two senses (a) that He should have a son; and (b) that He should adopt someone as His son. When it is inconsistent with God’s Majesty to adopt someone as His son, it is all the more repugnant to His Holiness and Glory to have a real son. These words repudiate the Christian belief, namely (i) that God has adopted Jesus as His son or (ii) that Jesus is God’s son.
Christians believe that Jesus was God’s son. The onus for proving such a manifestly absurd belief lies on them. They base this belief on the assumption that the Bible calls him the son of God. But in the Bible other persons have also been called or addressed as sons of God. Jesus enjoys no special prerogative in this respect and is therefore no more a son of God than those persons who have also been addressed as such.
The Bible says:
(a) "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God" (Luke 20: 36);
(b) "For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" (Jer. 31:9);
(c) "Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name" (Matt. 6:9);
(d) "For if you forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will also forgive you" (Matt. 6:14);
(e) "That your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses" (Mark 11: 25);
(f) "Your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things" (Luke 12: 30);
(g) "We have one Father, even God" (John 8: 41);
(h) "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephes. 4:6);
(i) "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn" (Exod. 4:22).
The Bible rather supports the Quranic statement, viz.it does not befit the Majesty of Allah to take unto Himself a son.He is the One Lord, God, Who has, or needs, no son.
It says:
(a) "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6:4);
(b) "I am the Lord, that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images" (Isa. 42:8);
(c) "Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12: 29);
(d) "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty" (Jude 1: 25);
(e) "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory forever and ever" (I Timothy 1: 17).
The verse under comment gives three reasons why God does not stand in need of a son:(1) if God were supposed to have a son, He must be subject to carnal desires and must have a wife to satisfy them; (2) He must be subject to decay and death because the procreation of species which the attribution of a son to God implies, is the characteristic of mortals; and (3) He must require a helper to assist Him in His work or to continue his work after His death. But God as represented by Islam is completely free from all these defects and therefore needs no son. In fact, the Christian dogma of sonship of Jesus is an insoluble riddle and beyond human comprehension. If Jesus is God’s son, then God will have to be admitted as incapable of carrying on the affairs of the universe alone and unaided, and therefore will have to be accepted as imperfect and defective. But because God is Perfect and All-Powerful, therefore He needs no son and no helper. Again, according to the Christian dogma each of the three deities, God, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, being perfect can and should carry on the work of the universe unaided and yet these three combine to do the thing which each one is able to accomplish by himself. This is absurd.
Those who are ignorant of Arabic language pretend to find in the word کن (be) a ground for their belief in the eternity and indestructibility of matter and soul. They argue in this way. This word shows that there had already existed something to which the order کن (be) was given. But in the Arabic language this word, besides being addressed to a thing, is also used to express a greatly felt desire. In an expedition the Holy Prophet’s very brave and loyal companion, Abu Khaithamah happened to be absent. The Prophet keenly felt his absence. When in the midst of the battle he saw from a great distance a rider coming to him at full speed he exclaimed کن ابا خیثمة i.e. would that it were Abu Khaithamah; and lo! it was really Abu Khaithamah (Halbiyyah). So an Arab would use the word کن when he would passionately desire a thing to happen.
According to this sense of کن the expression کن فیکون would mean that when God desires or intends that a thing should be, it comes into being or that when God expresses a desire it takes a concrete form. The words lend no support to the view that soul and matter are primeval or eternal. See also 2:117-118.
a
10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.
1769
Christians believe that Jesus was God’s son. They base this belief on the assumption that the Bible calls him "son of God." But in the Bible other persons have also been called or addressed as "sons of God." Jesus enjoys no special distinction in this respect and he is, therefore, no more a son of God than those persons who have also been addressed as such (Luke, 20: 36; Jer., 31: 9; Matt., 6: 9; John, 8: 41 & Ephes., 4: 6).
1770
In the Arabic language the word Kun, besides being addressed to a thing, is also used to express a greatly felt desire. In an expedition the Holy Prophet’s very brave and loyal Companion, Abu Khaithamah happened to be absent. The Holy Prophet keenly felt his absence. When in the midst of the battle he saw from a great distance a rider coming to him at full speed, he exclaimed Kun Aba Khaithamah, i.e. would that it were Abu Khaithamah; and lo! it was really Abu Khaithamah (Halbiyyah). So the word Kun would signify that when God desires or intends a thing to come into being, it comes into being; or when God expresses such a desire it takes a concrete form. The word lends no support to the view that soul and matter are primeval or coeternal with God.
وَمَا يَنۢبَغِى لِلرَّحْمَٰنِ أَن يَتَّخِذَ وَلَدًا
2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 37:152-155.
这一章非常强调而清楚地驳斥了基督教各个教条, 尤其是他们的伊撒是安拉的儿子这一基本教条, 因为所有他们其他的教条都源出于此。本节经文和前四节经文中特别着重地驳斥并谴责了这一教义。值得特别注意的是, 无限博爱这一安拉的常德在本章中反复地提到达十六次之多。由于伊撒是安拉的儿子这一基本教义及其必然的结果--------替世人赎罪的教条--------都是否定安拉的无限博爱这一常德的, 而且由于本章的中心论题是驳斥这一教义, 因此这一常德必然要反复谈及。替世人赎罪这一教条暗指安拉不可能宽恕人们的罪恶;而安拉无限博爱这一常德意示安拉能够并且实际上经常在宽恕他们, 因此, 在本章中反复提及这一常德。
2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 37:152-155.
The Surah contains most emphatic and clear denunciation of Christian dogmas, particularly their basic doctrine that Jesus is son of God, from which all other dogmas flow. In the present and preceding four verses special stress has been laid on the refutation and condemnation of this doctrine. It is worthy of special note that the Divine attribute Ar-Rahman has been repeatedly referred to in this Surah—it has been mentioned as many as sixteen times. As the fundamental dogma of the sonship of Jesus and its corollary, the dogma of atonement involve a denial of the Divine attribute Ar-Rahman and as the central theme of this Surah is the refutation of this dogma, this attribute inevitably has been repeatedly referred to. The dogma of atonement implies that God cannot forgive the sins of men whereas the Divine attribute 'Ar-Rahman' implies that He can and actually does often forgive them, hence its repetition in this Surah.
2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 37:152-155.
Commentary:
The Surah contains a most emphatic and clear denunciation of Christian dogmas, particularly the basic doctrine that Jesus is son of God, from which all other dogmas flow. In the present and preceding four verses special stress has been laid on the refutation and condemnation of this dogma. It is worthy of special note that the Divine attribute "Rahman" has been repeatedly referred to in this Surah—it has been mentioned as many as sixteen times. As the fundamental dogma of the sonship of Jesus and its corollary, the dogma of Atonement, involve a denial of the Divine attribute "Rahman" and as the central theme of this Surah is the refutation of this dogma, this attribute inevitably has been repeatedly referred to. The dogma of Atonement implies that God cannot forgive the sins of men whereas the Divine attribute "Rahman" implies that He can and actually often does forgive them, hence its repetition in this Surah.
g
2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 37:152-155.
808
这一章非常强调而清楚地驳斥了基督教各个教条, 尤其是他们的伊撒是安拉的儿子这一基本教条, 因为所有他们其他的教条都源出于此。本节经文和前四节经文中特别着重地驳斥并谴责了这一教义。值得特别注意的是, 无限博爱这一安拉的常德在本章中反复地提到达十六次之多。由于伊撒是安拉的儿子这一基本教义及其必然的结果--------替世人赎罪的教条--------都是否定安拉的无限博爱这一常德的, 而且由于本章的中心论题是驳斥这一教义, 因此这一常德必然要反复谈及。替世人赎罪这一教条暗指安拉不可能宽恕人们的罪恶;而安拉无限博爱这一常德意示安拉能够并且实际上经常在宽恕他们, 因此, 在本章中反复提及这一常德。
a
2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 37:152-155.
2231
Commentary:
The Surah contains a most emphatic and clear denunciation of Christian dogmas, particularly the basic doctrine that Jesus is son of God, from which all other dogmas flow. In the present and preceding four verses special stress has been laid on the refutation and condemnation of this dogma. It is worthy of special note that the Divine attribute "Rahman" has been repeatedly referred to in this Surah—it has been mentioned as many as sixteen times. As the fundamental dogma of the sonship of Jesus and its corollary, the dogma of Atonement, involve a denial of the Divine attribute "Rahman" and as the central theme of this Surah is the refutation of this dogma, this attribute inevitably has been repeatedly referred to. The dogma of Atonement implies that God cannot forgive the sins of men whereas the Divine attribute "Rahman" implies that He can and actually often does forgive them, hence its repetition in this Surah.
b
2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 37:152-155.
1803
The Surah contains most emphatic and clear denunciation of Christian dogmas, particularly their basic doctrine that Jesus is son of God, from which all other dogmas flow. In the present and preceding four verses special stress has been laid on the refutation and condemnation of this doctrine. It is worthy of special note that the Divine attribute Ar-Rahman has been repeatedly referred to in this Surah—it has been mentioned as many as sixteen times. As the fundamental dogma of the sonship of Jesus and its corollary, the dogma of atonement involve a denial of the Divine attribute Ar-Rahman and as the central theme of this Surah is the refutation of this dogma, this attribute inevitably has been repeatedly referred to. The dogma of atonement implies that God cannot forgive the sins of men whereas the Divine attribute 'Ar-Rahman' implies that He can and actually does often forgive them, hence its repetition in this Surah.
قُلْ مَآ أَسْـَٔلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ أَجْرٍ إِلَّا مَن شَآءَ أَن يَتَّخِذَ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِۦ سَبِيلًا
یہ آیت کتنی واضح ہے کہ اسلام کو جبر سے پھیلانا ناجائز ہے۔ اس آیت میں وضاحت سے کہا گیا ہے کہ میں تبلیغ اسلام کے بدلہ میں کوئی اجر نہیں چاہتا۔ میرا اجر یہی ہے کہ اگر کسی کا دل اسلام کی صداقت کو قبول کرلے تو اپنی مرضی سے اسلام میں داخل ہو جائے۔ میں اس پر کوئی جبر نہیں کر سکتا اور نہ کروں گا اس تعلیم کے ہوتے ہوئے یہ کہنا کہ اسلام تلوار کے ذریعہ سے پھیلا ہے اسلام پر کتنا ظلم اور تعدّی ہے۔ کیا کوئی اور مذہب بھی ہے جس نے اپنی اشاعت کے متعلق اس صفائی سے آزادیٔ ضمیر اور آزادیٔ رائے کی تائید کی ہو۔
38:87; 42:24.
Important Words:
إلا (save) is used to signify the sense of exception (إستثناء) and in Arabic إستثناء (exception) is of two kinds: (i) إستثناء متصل i.e. an exception in which the thing excepted belongs to the same class or species to which the things from which as exception is sought to be made belong; (ii) إستثناء منقطع i.e. an exception in which the excepted thing belongs to a different class or species. إلا in the present verse is of the latter category and the meaning is, he who will take a way to his Lord, let him do so.
Commentary:
The verse provides yet another unassailable evidence that the Quran gives complete and full freedom of conscience and choice of religious belief and practice.
e
38:87; 42:24.
921
按照这节经文的教导, 伊斯兰教明确禁止用武力来传播它的教义。
1
یہ آیت کتنی واضح ہے کہ اسلام کو جبر سے پھیلانا ناجائز ہے۔ اس آیت میں وضاحت سے کہا گیا ہے کہ میں تبلیغ اسلام کے بدلہ میں کوئی اجر نہیں چاہتا۔ میرا اجر یہی ہے کہ اگر کسی کا دل اسلام کی صداقت کو قبول کرلے تو اپنی مرضی سے اسلام میں داخل ہو جائے۔ میں اس پر کوئی جبر نہیں کر سکتا اور نہ کروں گا اس تعلیم کے ہوتے ہوئے یہ کہنا کہ اسلام تلوار کے ذریعہ سے پھیلا ہے اسلام پر کتنا ظلم اور تعدّی ہے۔ کیا کوئی اور مذہب بھی ہے جس نے اپنی اشاعت کے متعلق اس صفائی سے آزادیٔ ضمیر اور آزادیٔ رائے کی تائید کی ہو۔
c
38:87; 42:24.
2688
Important Words:
إلا (save) is used to signify the sense of exception (إستثناء) and in Arabic إستثناء (exception) is of two kinds: (i) إستثناء متصل i.e. an exception in which the thing excepted belongs to the same class or species to which the things from which as exception is sought to be made belong; (ii) إستثناء منقطع i.e. an exception in which the excepted thing belongs to a different class or species. إلا in the present verse is of the latter category and the meaning is, he who will take a way to his Lord, let him do so.
Commentary:
The verse provides yet another unassailable evidence that the Quran gives complete and full freedom of conscience and choice of religious belief and practice.
a
38:87; 42:24.
2086
According to this verse Islam clearly forbids the use of force for the propagation of its teaching.
لَّوْ أَرَادَ ٱللَّهُ أَن يَتَّخِذَ وَلَدًا لَّٱصْطَفَىٰ مِمَّا يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَآءُ ۚ سُبْحَٰنَهُۥ ۖ هُوَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلْوَٰحِدُ ٱلْقَهَّارُ
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 19:89-93
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 19:89-93
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89-93.
Commentary:
The most prevalent and perhaps the most hideous form of idolatry which has done the greatest injury to man’s religious instinct and his spiritual development and which has, therefore, quite rightly been condemned and denounced unsparingly and repeatedly in the Quran is the dogma of Jesus’ being the only son of God. It is this most blasphemous of all Christian dogmas which the present verse seeks to controvert; the argument advanced being that as God is the sole Creator of all things and He is قھار i.e. Most Supreme, He does not stand in need of a son. The argument is continued in the next verse.
e
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 19:89-93
a
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89-93.
3440A
Commentary:
The most prevalent and perhaps the most hideous form of idolatry which has done the greatest injury to man’s religious instinct and his spiritual development and which has, therefore, quite rightly been condemned and denounced unsparingly and repeatedly in the Quran is the dogma of Jesus’ being the only son of God. It is this most blasphemous of all Christian dogmas which the present verse seeks to controvert; the argument advanced being that as God is the sole Creator of all things and He is قھار i.e. Most Supreme, He does not stand in need of a son. The argument is continued in the next verse.
e
2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 19:89-93