دِينِ
Appears 5 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 5 verses containing "دِينِ".
أَفَغَيْرَ دِينِ ٱللَّهِ يَبْغُونَ وَلَهُۥٓ أَسْلَمَ مَن فِى ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ طَوْعًا وَكَرْهًا وَإِلَيْهِ يُرْجَعُونَ
As in the physical world man must submit to the laws of nature—and he knows by experience that such submission is useful for him—it is only reasonable that, in spiritual matters also wherein he has been granted a certain amount of freedom, he should obey the laws and commands of Allah and thus win His pleasure to his own benefit.
Commentary:
As in the physical world man must submit to the laws of nature, whether he wills it or not and he knows by experience that such submission is useful for him, it is only reasonable that in spiritual matters also, wherein he has been granted a certain amount of freedom, he should obey the laws and commands of Allah and thus win His pleasure to his own eventual benefit.
372
Commentary:
As in the physical world man must submit to the laws of nature, whether he wills it or not and he knows by experience that such submission is useful for him, it is only reasonable that in spiritual matters also, wherein he has been granted a certain amount of freedom, he should obey the laws and commands of Allah and thus win His pleasure to his own eventual benefit.
434
As in the physical world man must submit to the laws of nature—and he knows by experience that such submission is useful for him—it is only reasonable that, in spiritual matters also wherein he has been granted a certain amount of freedom, he should obey the laws and commands of Allah and thus win His pleasure to his own benefit.
فَبَدَأَ بِأَوْعِيَتِهِمْ قَبْلَ وِعَآءِ أَخِيهِ ثُمَّ ٱسْتَخْرَجَهَا مِن وِعَآءِ أَخِيهِ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ كِدْنَا لِيُوسُفَ ۖ مَا كَانَ لِيَأْخُذَ أَخَاهُ فِى دِينِ ٱلْمَلِكِ إِلَّآ أَن يَشَآءَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ نَرْفَعُ دَرَجَٰتٍ مَّن نَّشَآءُ ۗ وَفَوْقَ كُلِّ ذِى عِلْمٍ عَلِيمٌ
6:84.
نوکر سمجھ گئے تھے کہ بن یامین یوسفؑ کی نظر میں مقرب ہے۔ اس لئے انہوں نے اس کا بورا پیچھے دیکھا مگر خداتعالیٰ نے یوسفؑ کو بھلوا کر پیمانہ جو پانی پینے کے کام بھی آتا تھا۔ اس کے بھائی کے بورے میں رکھوا دیا تھا اور یہ خدائی فعل تھا‘ نہ کہ یوسفؑ کا۔ اسی لئے اللہ تعالیٰ فرماتا ہے کہ یہ تدبیر ہم نے یوسفؑ کے لئے کی تھی تاکہ وہ اپنے بھائی کو روک سکے ورنہ ملکی قانون کے مطابق بغیر کسی جرم کے وہ اسے روک نہیں سکتا تھا۔ اس آیت سے ثابت ہے کہ یوسفؑ نے کوئی دھوکہ نہیں کیا بلکہ اللہ نے اسے بھلوا دیا تا بھائی کو روک سکے۔ بھائی کا بھی کوئی نقصان نہ ہوا بلکہ وزیروں کی صحبت اور رتبہ ملا۔
6:84.
The pronoun 'he' refers to the man who announced the loss of the measuring-vessel and who naturally himself came forward to make the search.
This was due to the special consideration which Joseph had shown to Benjamin.
The whole thing was planned by God—Joseph having no hand in it. Quite inadvertently Joseph happened to place the King’s measuring-vessel, which he used as a drinking-cup on that occasion, in Benjamin’s luggage and his brothers themselves made the suggestion which enabled Joseph to detain Benjamin. Thus a providential combination of circumstances enabled Joseph to satisfy his heart’s desire.
6:84.
Commentary:
The words, Thus did We plan for Joseph, make it clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the whole thing was planned by God Himself, Joseph having no hand in it. Quite inadvertently Joseph happened to place the King’s measuring cup in Benjamin’s luggage and his brothers happened themselves to make the suggestion which enabled Joseph to detain Benjamin.
Incidentally, the verse also shows that even a Prophet living under an alien government should abide by its laws and give it his full cooperation. Joseph desired to keep his brother with him, but the law of the land forbade him to do so. A Providential combination of circumstances, however, enabled him to satisfy his heart’s desire. The mistaken view held by some Muslims that a foreign Government is not entitled to their loyalty and cooperation finds no support in Islam. It tends adversely to affect their morals, and their whole attitude towards their rulers is calculated to become based on insincerity, even hypocrisy.
The words, then he began the search with their sacks before the sack of his brother, do not mean that Joseph made the search personally. The pronoun "he" refers to the man who announced the loss of the measuring cup and who naturally himself came forward to make the search. The reason why he searched Benjamin’s luggage last lies in the fact that, owing to Joseph’s kindly attitude towards him, the proclaimer naturally desired to show the greatest possible deference to Benjamin.
a
6:84.
2
نوکر سمجھ گئے تھے کہ بن یامین یوسفؑ کی نظر میں مقرب ہے۔ اس لئے انہوں نے اس کا بورا پیچھے دیکھا مگر خداتعالیٰ نے یوسفؑ کو بھلوا کر پیمانہ جو پانی پینے کے کام بھی آتا تھا۔ اس کے بھائی کے بورے میں رکھوا دیا تھا اور یہ خدائی فعل تھا‘ نہ کہ یوسفؑ کا۔ اسی لئے اللہ تعالیٰ فرماتا ہے کہ یہ تدبیر ہم نے یوسفؑ کے لئے کی تھی تاکہ وہ اپنے بھائی کو روک سکے ورنہ ملکی قانون کے مطابق بغیر کسی جرم کے وہ اسے روک نہیں سکتا تھا۔ اس آیت سے ثابت ہے کہ یوسفؑ نے کوئی دھوکہ نہیں کیا بلکہ اللہ نے اسے بھلوا دیا تا بھائی کو روک سکے۔ بھائی کا بھی کوئی نقصان نہ ہوا بلکہ وزیروں کی صحبت اور رتبہ ملا۔
a
6:84.
1576
Commentary:
The words, Thus did We plan for Joseph, make it clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the whole thing was planned by God Himself, Joseph having no hand in it. Quite inadvertently Joseph happened to place the King’s measuring cup in Benjamin’s luggage and his brothers happened themselves to make the suggestion which enabled Joseph to detain Benjamin.
Incidentally, the verse also shows that even a Prophet living under an alien government should abide by its laws and give it his full cooperation. Joseph desired to keep his brother with him, but the law of the land forbade him to do so. A Providential combination of circumstances, however, enabled him to satisfy his heart’s desire. The mistaken view held by some Muslims that a foreign Government is not entitled to their loyalty and cooperation finds no support in Islam. It tends adversely to affect their morals, and their whole attitude towards their rulers is calculated to become based on insincerity, even hypocrisy.
The words, then he began the search with their sacks before the sack of his brother, do not mean that Joseph made the search personally. The pronoun "he" refers to the man who announced the loss of the measuring cup and who naturally himself came forward to make the search. The reason why he searched Benjamin’s luggage last lies in the fact that, owing to Joseph’s kindly attitude towards him, the proclaimer naturally desired to show the greatest possible deference to Benjamin.
a
6:84.
1396
The pronoun 'he' refers to the man who announced the loss of the measuring-vessel and who naturally himself came forward to make the search.
1396A
This was due to the special consideration which Joseph had shown to Benjamin.
1397
The whole thing was planned by God—Joseph having no hand in it. Quite inadvertently Joseph happened to place the King’s measuring-vessel, which he used as a drinking-cup on that occasion, in Benjamin’s luggage and his brothers themselves made the suggestion which enabled Joseph to detain Benjamin. Thus a providential combination of circumstances enabled Joseph to satisfy his heart’s desire.
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
لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِىَ دِينِ
这节经文的含意是, 因为在信者的生活方式和不信者的生活方式之间绝对没有会合之处, 还因为他们不仅在宗教的基本概念方面存在完全的分歧, 而且在宗教的细节和其他方面也存在分歧, 因此两者之间不可能有妥协。
عربی زبان میں دین کے کئی معنے ہیں جن میں سے ایک معنے طریقِ کار کے بھی ہیں۔
The verse signifies that as there is absolutely no meeting ground between the believers’ way of life and that of the disbelievers and as they are in complete disagreement not only with regard to the basic concepts of Religion but also with regard to its details and other aspects, therefore, there can possibly be no compromise between the two.
2:140; 10:42.
Commentary:
For different meanings of دین see 107:2. According to these the verse signifies: "As there is absolutely no meeting ground between your way of life and mine and as we are in complete disagreement not only with regard to the basic concepts of religion but also with regard to its details and other aspects, therefore, there cannot possibly be any compromise between us.
1808
这节经文的含意是, 因为在信者的生活方式和不信者的生活方式之间绝对没有会合之处, 还因为他们不仅在宗教的基本概念方面存在完全的分歧, 而且在宗教的细节和其他方面也存在分歧, 因此两者之间不可能有妥协。
1
عربی زبان میں دین کے کئی معنے ہیں جن میں سے ایک معنے طریقِ کار کے بھی ہیں۔
a
2:140; 10:42.
4860
Commentary:
For different meanings of دین see 107:2. According to these the verse signifies: "As there is absolutely no meeting ground between your way of life and mine and as we are in complete disagreement not only with regard to the basic concepts of religion but also with regard to its details and other aspects, therefore, there cannot possibly be any compromise between us.
3454
The verse signifies that as there is absolutely no meeting ground between the believers’ way of life and that of the disbelievers and as they are in complete disagreement not only with regard to the basic concepts of Religion but also with regard to its details and other aspects, therefore, there can possibly be no compromise between the two.
وَرَأَيْتَ ٱلنَّاسَ يَدْخُلُونَ فِى دِينِ ٱللَّهِ أَفْوَاجًا
اس آیت کا جوڑ سورۃ کوثر سے ثابت ہوتا ہے کیونکہ سورۃ کوثر میں بھی یہی وعدہ تھا کہ روحانی لوگ کثرت سے تیری امت میں پیدا ہوں گے اور اس میں بھی یہی کہا گیا ہے کہ تُو دیکھے گا کہ لوگ اللہ کے دین میں فوج در فوج داخل ہوں گے۔ پس اس آیت نے واضح کر دیا کہ یہ سورۃ کوثر کے ساتھ تعلق رکھتی ہے۔
1
اس آیت کا جوڑ سورۃ کوثر سے ثابت ہوتا ہے کیونکہ سورۃ کوثر میں بھی یہی وعدہ تھا کہ روحانی لوگ کثرت سے تیری امت میں پیدا ہوں گے اور اس میں بھی یہی کہا گیا ہے کہ تُو دیکھے گا کہ لوگ اللہ کے دین میں فوج در فوج داخل ہوں گے۔ پس اس آیت نے واضح کر دیا کہ یہ سورۃ کوثر کے ساتھ تعلق رکھتی ہے۔