تُؤْمِنُونَ
Appears 5 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 5 verses containing "تُؤْمِنُونَ".
يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ أَطِيعُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا۟ ٱلرَّسُولَ وَأُو۟لِى ٱلْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ ۖ فَإِن تَنَٰزَعْتُمْ فِى شَىْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ وَٱلرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلْءَاخِرِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا
4:84.
4:66.
为了指出对由法律恰当地指定的权威的服从就是对安拉和安拉的使者的服从, “服从” 这词是重复用在 “安拉” 和 “使者” 这两词前面, 而在那些 “当权的” 字句前面这词是省略的。体现在 “把它交给安拉和安拉的使者” 这句话中的指令可以指统治者之间的分歧, 也可以指被统治者内部的分歧。就前者而言就是, 如果统治者与被统治者对某事产生不同意见, 就应该按照 «古兰经» 的教导来决定;如意见不能一致就在圣行和圣训中找根据。可是, 如果 «古兰经»、圣行和圣训对此问题均未曾提到, 就应该留待有权处理穆斯林之间事务的当局去解决。这节经文似乎提到了那些特别跟国家大事有关的事情。在这方面的基本指令是, 对权力的完全服从不能超过安拉和他的使者的服从。可是, “如果对于社会问题等有不同意见和争论” 正如经文提及:“如果你们有分歧”, 那么, 应该按伊斯兰经典而不是按任何其它法律。
4:84
4:66
The word "obey" which has been repeated before the words "Allah" and "Messenger" has been omitted before the words, those who are in authority, in order to point out that obedience to the authority properly constituted by Law amounts to obedience to God and His Messenger. The injunction embodied in the words, "refer it to Allah and His Messenger" may either relate to differences between the rulers and the ruled or to those among the ruled themselves. In the former case the significance is that if there is a matter on which disagreement arises between the rulers and the ruled, it should be decided in the light of the Quranic teaching, or failing that, in that of the Sunnah and the Hadith. If, however, the Qur’an, the Sunnah and the Hadith are silent on the question, it should be left to those in whom is vested the authority to manage the affairs of Muslims. The verse seems to refer to matters concerning particularly the affairs of the State. The basic commandment in this respect is that all obedien
4:84.
4:66.
Important Words:
اولی الامر (those in authority) is made up of two words: (1) اولی which is originally اولوا meaning, possessors of or possessing or having; and (2) امر meaning, rule, authority, command, affair or matter, etc. اولی الامر means: (1) those who possess or hold authority command or rule; and (2) the learned men who, as it were, possess authority in knowledge (Taj & Aqrab).
Commentary:
The word "obey" which has been repeated before the words "Allah" and "Messenger" has been omitted before the words, those who are in authority, in order to point out that obedience to the authority properly constituted by Law is in reality obedience to God and His Messenger.
The clause, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, means that in case of difference, the matter should be referred to the Quran and the authentic Sunnah and Hadith of the Holy Prophet. The injunction may either relate to differences between the rulers and the ruled or to those among the ruled themselves. In the former case, the significance is that if there is a matter on which disagreement arises between the rulers and the ruled, it should be decided in the light of the Quranic teaching, or failing that, in that of the authentic Sunnah and Hadith. If, however, the Quran, the Sunnah and Hadith are silent on the question, it should be left in the hands of those in whom is vested the authority to manage the affairs of Muslims; and the latter are enjoined to abide by their decision even if they do not see eye to eye with them, because true obedience consists in obeying against one’s will and judgement. The words, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, may also mean that in case of a difference between the people and those in authority, the former are enjoined to do as Allah and His Messenger have bidden them to do on such occasions, i.e. that in such a case they should obey those in authority.
Primarily, however, the words, if you differ, do not refer to any differences between the rulers and the ruled but to disagreements arising among the ruled themselves. In this case the injunction embodied in the verse is that in matters pertaining to discipline and administration, Muslims should obey those in authority, but in disputes and differences regarding social matters, etc. they should be guided by the Law of Islam and not by other laws. This is the interpretation which Ibn Kathir (iii. 130-31) has adopted and which is in keeping with the context. The next verse also refers only to disputes among the ruled, and not to those between rulers and ruled.
The words, those in authority, in their wider significance include even such non-Muslims as may happen to be in authority over Muslims. In this case the additional words منکم would not mean "from among you" but simply "among you", i.e. "over you". The practice of the Holy Prophet as well as his sayings make it clear that in secular matters Muslims should obey even such of their rulers as are not Muslims.
a
4:84.
b
4:66.
332
为了指出对由法律恰当地指定的权威的服从就是对安拉和安拉的使者的服从, “服从” 这词是重复用在 “安拉” 和 “使者” 这两词前面, 而在那些 “当权的” 字句前面这词是省略的。体现在 “把它交给安拉和安拉的使者” 这句话中的指令可以指统治者之间的分歧, 也可以指被统治者内部的分歧。就前者而言就是, 如果统治者与被统治者对某事产生不同意见, 就应该按照 «古兰经» 的教导来决定;如意见不能一致就在圣行和圣训中找根据。可是, 如果 «古兰经»、圣行和圣训对此问题均未曾提到, 就应该留待有权处理穆斯林之间事务的当局去解决。这节经文似乎提到了那些特别跟国家大事有关的事情。在这方面的基本指令是, 对权力的完全服从不能超过安拉和他的使者的服从。可是, “如果对于社会问题等有不同意见和争论” 正如经文提及:“如果你们有分歧”, 那么, 应该按伊斯兰经典而不是按任何其它法律。
a
4:84.
b
4:66.
533
Important Words:
اولی الامر (those in authority) is made up of two words: (1) اولی which is originally اولوا meaning, possessors of or possessing or having; and (2) امر meaning, rule, authority, command, affair or matter, etc. اولی الامر means: (1) those who possess or hold authority command or rule; and (2) the learned men who, as it were, possess authority in knowledge (Taj & Aqrab).
Commentary:
The word "obey" which has been repeated before the words "Allah" and "Messenger" has been omitted before the words, those who are in authority, in order to point out that obedience to the authority properly constituted by Law is in reality obedience to God and His Messenger.
The clause, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, means that in case of difference, the matter should be referred to the Quran and the authentic Sunnah and Hadith of the Holy Prophet. The injunction may either relate to differences between the rulers and the ruled or to those among the ruled themselves. In the former case, the significance is that if there is a matter on which disagreement arises between the rulers and the ruled, it should be decided in the light of the Quranic teaching, or failing that, in that of the authentic Sunnah and Hadith. If, however, the Quran, the Sunnah and Hadith are silent on the question, it should be left in the hands of those in whom is vested the authority to manage the affairs of Muslims; and the latter are enjoined to abide by their decision even if they do not see eye to eye with them, because true obedience consists in obeying against one’s will and judgement. The words, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, may also mean that in case of a difference between the people and those in authority, the former are enjoined to do as Allah and His Messenger have bidden them to do on such occasions, i.e. that in such a case they should obey those in authority.
Primarily, however, the words, if you differ, do not refer to any differences between the rulers and the ruled but to disagreements arising among the ruled themselves. In this case the injunction embodied in the verse is that in matters pertaining to discipline and administration, Muslims should obey those in authority, but in disputes and differences regarding social matters, etc. they should be guided by the Law of Islam and not by other laws. This is the interpretation which Ibn Kathir (iii. 130-31) has adopted and which is in keeping with the context. The next verse also refers only to disputes among the ruled, and not to those between rulers and ruled.
The words, those in authority, in their wider significance include even such non-Muslims as may happen to be in authority over Muslims. In this case the additional words منکم would not mean "from among you" but simply "among you", i.e. "over you". The practice of the Holy Prophet as well as his sayings make it clear that in secular matters Muslims should obey even such of their rulers as are not Muslims.
a
4:84
b
4:66
623
The word "obey" which has been repeated before the words "Allah" and "Messenger" has been omitted before the words, those who are in authority, in order to point out that obedience to the authority properly constituted by Law amounts to obedience to God and His Messenger. The injunction embodied in the words, "refer it to Allah and His Messenger" may either relate to differences between the rulers and the ruled or to those among the ruled themselves. In the former case the significance is that if there is a matter on which disagreement arises between the rulers and the ruled, it should be decided in the light of the Quranic teaching, or failing that, in that of the Sunnah and the Hadith. If, however, the Qur’an, the Sunnah and the Hadith are silent on the question, it should be left to those in whom is vested the authority to manage the affairs of Muslims. The verse seems to refer to matters concerning particularly the affairs of the State. The basic commandment in this respect is that all obedien
ٱلزَّانِيَةُ وَٱلزَّانِى فَٱجْلِدُوا۟ كُلَّ وَٰحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا مِا۟ئَةَ جَلْدَةٍ ۖ وَلَا تَأْخُذْكُم بِهِمَا رَأْفَةٌ فِى دِينِ ٱللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلْءَاخِرِ ۖ وَلْيَشْهَدْ عَذَابَهُمَا طَآئِفَةٌ مِّنَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ
The words, az-Zani and az-Zaniyah, signify respectively both an adulterer and a fornicator; and an adulteress and a fornicatress.
Chastity as a moral virtue holds a very high place in the code of Islamic laws that govern relations between the sexes. The present Surah has laid down comprehensive commandments to safeguard and protect it. Islam views with extreme disapprobation the slightest breach of these laws. It is Islam’s very great sensitiveness about chastity that is reflected in the punishment prescribed for adultery or fornication in the verse under comment. The punishment prescribed is hundred stripes, no distinction having been made whether the guilty persons are married or unmarried or one of the party is married and the other unmarried. Flogging and not stoning to death, according to this verse, is the prescribed punishment. Nowhere in the Qur’an stoning to death has been laid down as punishment for adultery and, for that matter, for any other crime, however serious. Islam has not prescribed killing as a necessary and unqualified punishment even for crimes much more heinous than adultery such as unprovoked murder
Important Words:
الزانی is act. part. from زنی (aor. یزنی inf. n. زنی & زناء). They say زنی بھا i.e. he committed fornication or adultery with her. Thus الزنا means both fornication and adultery. ابن زنی، ولد زنیة and ولد الزنا all mean the same thing, i.e. the offspring of fornication or adultery. الزانی means, fornicator or adulterer, and الزانیة means, fornicatress or adulteress; and applied to a man it has an intensive meaning, i.e. one much addicted to fornication or adultery. The plural of زان is زناة like قضاة which is plural of قاض and the plural of زانیة is زوان (Lane & Aqrab).
جلدة (stripes) is derived from جلد. They say جلدہ i.e. he hit or hurt his skin; he beat his skin; he beat him; he struck him with a whip; he flogged him with a whip. جلدة means, flogging, scourging, whipping; stripe. The word is used both as plural and singular (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
Chastity as a moral virtue holds a very high place in the code of Islamic laws that govern relations between the sexes. The present Surah has laid down comprehensive commandments to safeguard and protect it. Islam views with extreme disapprobation the slightest breach of these laws. It is Islam’s very great sensitiveness about chastity that is reflected in the punishment prescribed for adultery or fornication in the verse under comment. The punishment prescribed is hundred stripes, no distinction having been made whether the guilty persons are married or unmarried or one of the party is married and the other unmarried. Thus flogging and not stoning to death according to this verse is the punishment prescribed by Islam for adultery or fornication. Nowhere in the Quran has stoning to death been laid down as punishment for adultery and for that matter for any other crime however serious. Islam has not prescribed killing as a necessary and unqualified punishment even for crimes much more heinous than adultery such as unprovoked murder, dacoity, treason against the state and disturbing the peace of the land. Though extreme penalty for these crimes is death, yet the payment of blood money in the case of the first offence (2:129) and imprisonment or banishment for the other crimes (5:33-34) have been laid down as alternative punishments. Elsewhere in the Quran where punishment for adultery for a married slave-girl is mentioned (4:26), it is clearly stated that she will get half the punishment prescribed for that of a free, married woman; and evidently the punishment of stoning to death cannot be halved.
So in spite of the fact that the Quran has quite clearly and unequivocally laid down (as in the verse under comment) flogging as the punishment for adultery and has made no discrimination whatever between a married or an unmarried culprit in the matter of awarding punishment (because زانی means both a fornicator and adulterer), and in spite of the fact that the present and other relevant verses were revealed in connection with slander-mongering about ‘A’ishah, the Holy Prophet’s noble consort, who herself was a married lady, it is curious that the misconception has persisted without any justification or linguistic authority among certain schools of Muslim religious thought that the verse under comment deals with punishment for unmarried persons only and that the punishment for a married adulterer and adulteress is stoning to death. The misconception seems to be due to a few cases recorded in Hadith whereby married persons guilty of adultery were stoned to death by the order of the Holy Prophet. One of these few cases was that of a Jew and a Jewess who were stoned to death in accordance with the Mosaic Law (Bukhari). It was invariably the Holy Prophet’s practice that he abided by the Law of the Torah in deciding cases till a new commandment was revealed to him. In one or two other cases on record in which the punishment accorded was stoning to death, it has not been established whether the crime was committed before or after the verse under comment was revealed. It seems that in cases in which the guilty person was stoned to death, the crime was committed before the revelation of this verse, but by some miscalculation on the part of some chronicler it was believed to have taken place after it. There is no dearth of such historical anachronisms in the books of Hadith. Or there might have been some other aggravating circumstances besides the crime of adultery which made the Holy Prophet award the guilty person or persons the extreme punishment of death and which the chronicler of the incident failed to take into account. Otherwise it is simply inconceivable that the Holy Prophet should have contravened the quite clear and unequivocal Divine commandment in this respect.
Another possible cause for misunderstanding about the form of punishment for adultery may be a saying attributed to Caliph ‘Umar. He is reported to have said: "There was a verse in the Book of God about rajm (stoning). We read it, we understood it and we remembered it. The Holy Prophet stoned adulterers to death and we also stoned after him. Were it not that people might say that ‘Umar had added in the Book of God what was not in it, I would have written it down" (Kashful-Ghummah vol.2, p.111). The whole hadith seems to be a pure fabrication or at best the result of misunderstanding or distortion of what ‘Umar might actually have said. How by writing down in the Quran what was a part of it could be called an addition to it and how, of all men, ‘Umar could have been afraid of anybody for doing the right thing, least of all for restoring to the Quran a lost text! It is impossible to attribute such confused thinking and irresponsible talk to a man of ‘Umar’s intellectual and moral calibre and stature. If the saying were to be taken at its face value, the whole claim of the Quran that it enjoys perpetual Divine protection and therefore is quite free from human interference falls to the ground.
‘Ali seems to hold quite a different view from that of ‘Umar regarding this very important religious question. After flogging a woman who had committed adultery and then stoning her to death, he is reported to have said: "I have flogged her in obedience to the commandment of the Book of God and have stoned her to death in accordance with the practice of the Holy Prophet" (Bukhari). From this hadith, two inferences clearly emerge:
(1) In the matter of punishing an adulterer or adulteress the practice of the Holy Prophet was at variance with the commandment of God as laid down in the Quran, which is impossible. (2) Whereas according to ‘Umar there was a commandment in the Book of God about stoning to death of an adulterer, according to ‘Ali there was no such commandment, it was only the practice of the Holy Prophet according to which he stoned to death persons guilty of adultery. It is impossible to reconcile the views of these two great leaders of Islam and equally impossible to believe that they held diametrically opposed views regarding a most important question of religion. And it is indeed very surprising that in the face of quite clear, unambiguous and unequivocal Divine commandments the view should have been held, of all men by ‘Umar and ‘Ali, or by any school of Muslim religious thought that Islam has prescribed stoning to death as punishment for an adulterer. The Quran rejects this view as wholly untenable. Somewhere some misunderstanding must have occurred on the part of a chronicler or narrator of the sayings of the Holy Prophet which has caused all this confusion.
It may be of interest to note that the verse has used the words الزانی and الزانیة (and not زانی and زانیة) which suggest a particular class of adulterers and fornicators such as hardened or habitual culprits or those who are lost to all sense of shame and remorse and having thrown all restraint and constraint to the winds indulge in this hideous crime openly.
The verse further lays down that the beating of the culprit should not be so severe as to cause his death or break his bone but should hurt only the skin as the word اجلدوا used in the verse signifies and as is implied in 4:26.
2592
Important Words:
الزانی is act. part. from زنی (aor. یزنی inf. n. زنی & زناء). They say زنی بھا i.e. he committed fornication or adultery with her. Thus الزنا means both fornication and adultery. ابن زنی، ولد زنیة and ولد الزنا all mean the same thing, i.e. the offspring of fornication or adultery. الزانی means, fornicator or adulterer, and الزانیة means, fornicatress or adulteress; and applied to a man it has an intensive meaning, i.e. one much addicted to fornication or adultery. The plural of زان is زناة like قضاة which is plural of قاض and the plural of زانیة is زوان (Lane & Aqrab).
جلدة (stripes) is derived from جلد. They say جلدہ i.e. he hit or hurt his skin; he beat his skin; he beat him; he struck him with a whip; he flogged him with a whip. جلدة means, flogging, scourging, whipping; stripe. The word is used both as plural and singular (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
Chastity as a moral virtue holds a very high place in the code of Islamic laws that govern relations between the sexes. The present Surah has laid down comprehensive commandments to safeguard and protect it. Islam views with extreme disapprobation the slightest breach of these laws. It is Islam’s very great sensitiveness about chastity that is reflected in the punishment prescribed for adultery or fornication in the verse under comment. The punishment prescribed is hundred stripes, no distinction having been made whether the guilty persons are married or unmarried or one of the party is married and the other unmarried. Thus flogging and not stoning to death according to this verse is the punishment prescribed by Islam for adultery or fornication. Nowhere in the Quran has stoning to death been laid down as punishment for adultery and for that matter for any other crime however serious. Islam has not prescribed killing as a necessary and unqualified punishment even for crimes much more heinous than adultery such as unprovoked murder, dacoity, treason against the state and disturbing the peace of the land. Though extreme penalty for these crimes is death, yet the payment of blood money in the case of the first offence (2:129) and imprisonment or banishment for the other crimes (5:33-34) have been laid down as alternative punishments. Elsewhere in the Quran where punishment for adultery for a married slave-girl is mentioned (4:26), it is clearly stated that she will get half the punishment prescribed for that of a free, married woman; and evidently the punishment of stoning to death cannot be halved.
So in spite of the fact that the Quran has quite clearly and unequivocally laid down (as in the verse under comment) flogging as the punishment for adultery and has made no discrimination whatever between a married or an unmarried culprit in the matter of awarding punishment (because زانی means both a fornicator and adulterer), and in spite of the fact that the present and other relevant verses were revealed in connection with slander-mongering about ‘A’ishah, the Holy Prophet’s noble consort, who herself was a married lady, it is curious that the misconception has persisted without any justification or linguistic authority among certain schools of Muslim religious thought that the verse under comment deals with punishment for unmarried persons only and that the punishment for a married adulterer and adulteress is stoning to death. The misconception seems to be due to a few cases recorded in Hadith whereby married persons guilty of adultery were stoned to death by the order of the Holy Prophet. One of these few cases was that of a Jew and a Jewess who were stoned to death in accordance with the Mosaic Law (Bukhari). It was invariably the Holy Prophet’s practice that he abided by the Law of the Torah in deciding cases till a new commandment was revealed to him. In one or two other cases on record in which the punishment accorded was stoning to death, it has not been established whether the crime was committed before or after the verse under comment was revealed. It seems that in cases in which the guilty person was stoned to death, the crime was committed before the revelation of this verse, but by some miscalculation on the part of some chronicler it was believed to have taken place after it. There is no dearth of such historical anachronisms in the books of Hadith. Or there might have been some other aggravating circumstances besides the crime of adultery which made the Holy Prophet award the guilty person or persons the extreme punishment of death and which the chronicler of the incident failed to take into account. Otherwise it is simply inconceivable that the Holy Prophet should have contravened the quite clear and unequivocal Divine commandment in this respect.
Another possible cause for misunderstanding about the form of punishment for adultery may be a saying attributed to Caliph ‘Umar. He is reported to have said: "There was a verse in the Book of God about rajm (stoning). We read it, we understood it and we remembered it. The Holy Prophet stoned adulterers to death and we also stoned after him. Were it not that people might say that ‘Umar had added in the Book of God what was not in it, I would have written it down" (Kashful-Ghummah vol.2, p.111). The whole hadith seems to be a pure fabrication or at best the result of misunderstanding or distortion of what ‘Umar might actually have said. How by writing down in the Quran what was a part of it could be called an addition to it and how, of all men, ‘Umar could have been afraid of anybody for doing the right thing, least of all for restoring to the Quran a lost text! It is impossible to attribute such confused thinking and irresponsible talk to a man of ‘Umar’s intellectual and moral calibre and stature. If the saying were to be taken at its face value, the whole claim of the Quran that it enjoys perpetual Divine protection and therefore is quite free from human interference falls to the ground.
‘Ali seems to hold quite a different view from that of ‘Umar regarding this very important religious question. After flogging a woman who had committed adultery and then stoning her to death, he is reported to have said: "I have flogged her in obedience to the commandment of the Book of God and have stoned her to death in accordance with the practice of the Holy Prophet" (Bukhari). From this hadith, two inferences clearly emerge:
(1) In the matter of punishing an adulterer or adulteress the practice of the Holy Prophet was at variance with the commandment of God as laid down in the Quran, which is impossible. (2) Whereas according to ‘Umar there was a commandment in the Book of God about stoning to death of an adulterer, according to ‘Ali there was no such commandment, it was only the practice of the Holy Prophet according to which he stoned to death persons guilty of adultery. It is impossible to reconcile the views of these two great leaders of Islam and equally impossible to believe that they held diametrically opposed views regarding a most important question of religion. And it is indeed very surprising that in the face of quite clear, unambiguous and unequivocal Divine commandments the view should have been held, of all men by ‘Umar and ‘Ali, or by any school of Muslim religious thought that Islam has prescribed stoning to death as punishment for an adulterer. The Quran rejects this view as wholly untenable. Somewhere some misunderstanding must have occurred on the part of a chronicler or narrator of the sayings of the Holy Prophet which has caused all this confusion.
It may be of interest to note that the verse has used the words الزانی and الزانیة (and not زانی and زانیة) which suggest a particular class of adulterers and fornicators such as hardened or habitual culprits or those who are lost to all sense of shame and remorse and having thrown all restraint and constraint to the winds indulge in this hideous crime openly.
The verse further lays down that the beating of the culprit should not be so severe as to cause his death or break his bone but should hurt only the skin as the word اجلدوا used in the verse signifies and as is implied in 4:26.
2025A
The words, az-Zani and az-Zaniyah, signify respectively both an adulterer and a fornicator; and an adulteress and a fornicatress.
2026
Chastity as a moral virtue holds a very high place in the code of Islamic laws that govern relations between the sexes. The present Surah has laid down comprehensive commandments to safeguard and protect it. Islam views with extreme disapprobation the slightest breach of these laws. It is Islam’s very great sensitiveness about chastity that is reflected in the punishment prescribed for adultery or fornication in the verse under comment. The punishment prescribed is hundred stripes, no distinction having been made whether the guilty persons are married or unmarried or one of the party is married and the other unmarried. Flogging and not stoning to death, according to this verse, is the prescribed punishment. Nowhere in the Qur’an stoning to death has been laid down as punishment for adultery and, for that matter, for any other crime, however serious. Islam has not prescribed killing as a necessary and unqualified punishment even for crimes much more heinous than adultery such as unprovoked murder
وَمَا لَكُمْ لَا تُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ ۙ وَٱلرَّسُولُ يَدْعُوكُمْ لِتُؤْمِنُوا۟ بِرَبِّكُمْ وَقَدْ أَخَذَ مِيثَٰقَكُمْ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ
یعنی فطرت صحیحہ میں خداتعالیٰ پر ایمان لانا اور اس کی طرف جانا مخفی رکھا گیا ہے۔
"The covenant" spoken of in the verse signifies the faith in God implanted in human nature and the longing to achieve His nearness.
Commentary:
The expression مالکم besides the meaning given in the text may also signify: "There is no earthly reason that…"
"The covenant" spoken of in the verse signifies the faith-in-God implanted in the nature of man, and the longing to get near to Him.
1
یعنی فطرت صحیحہ میں خداتعالیٰ پر ایمان لانا اور اس کی طرف جانا مخفی رکھا گیا ہے۔
4152
Commentary:
The expression مالکم besides the meaning given in the text may also signify: "There is no earthly reason that…"
"The covenant" spoken of in the verse signifies the faith-in-God implanted in the nature of man, and the longing to get near to Him.
2988
"The covenant" spoken of in the verse signifies the faith in God implanted in human nature and the longing to achieve His nearness.
تُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِۦ وَتُجَٰهِدُونَ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ بِأَمْوَٰلِكُمْ وَأَنفُسِكُمْ ۚ ذَٰلِكُمْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ
9:20, 41.
9:20, 41.
9:20, 41.
Commentary:
The reference in the verse again seems to be to the present time—the era of the Promised Messiah, in which, in the absence of religious wars, monetary sacrifice is given precedence over other forms of sacrifice. The present is the time for propagation of Islamic principles and ideals for which money, more than anything else, is urgently needed. The two verses (11, 12) equally are of general application.
a
9:20, 41.
a
9:20, 41.
4231
Commentary:
The reference in the verse again seems to be to the present time—the era of the Promised Messiah, in which, in the absence of religious wars, monetary sacrifice is given precedence over other forms of sacrifice. The present is the time for propagation of Islamic principles and ideals for which money, more than anything else, is urgently needed. The two verses (11, 12) equally are of general application.
a
9:20, 41.
وَمَا هُوَ بِقَوْلِ شَاعِرٍ ۚ قَلِيلًا مَّا تُؤْمِنُونَ
36:70; 52:31.
36:70; 52:31.
21:6; 26:225; 36:70; 52:31.
c
36:70; 52:31.
a
21:6; 26:225; 36:70; 52:31.
a
36:70; 52:31.