لِرَسُوۡلٍ
Appears 3 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 3 verses containing "لِرَسُوۡلٍ".
اَلَّذِیۡنَ قَالُوۡۤا اِنَّ اللّٰہَ عَہِدَ اِلَیۡنَاۤ اَلَّا نُؤۡمِنَ لِرَسُوۡلٍ حَتّٰی یَاۡتِیَنَا بِقُرۡبَانٍ تَاۡکُلُہُ النَّارُ ۗ قُلۡ قَدۡ جَآءَکُمۡ رُسُلٌ مِّنۡ قَبۡلِیۡ بِالۡبَیِّنٰتِ وَبِالَّذِیۡ قُلۡتُمۡ فَلِمَ قَتَلۡتُمُوۡہُمۡ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ صٰدِقِیۡنَ
مراد یہ نہیں کہ آگ کہیں سے آکر اسے بھسم کر دیتی تھی بلکہ مراد اس قربانی سے تھی جو آگ میں جلا دی جاتی اور اسے سوختنی قربانی کہا جاتا تھا۔ ایسی قربانی کا رواج ہندوؤں، ایرانیوں اور یہود میں بہت تھا۔
5:33; 14:10; 40:84.
The verse answers the objection of the Jews about the burnt offerings by saying that the observance of the law regarding such offerings was no criterion to test the truth of a Prophet, because that could easily be done by an impostor. It was only "clear signs" that demonstrated and established the truth of a claimant. But even if observance of burnt offerings was the criterion of a true Prophet, the Jews had no right to raise an objection. The charge is driven home to them in the words, "Why did they reject those Prophets who strictly conformed to that law?"
5:33; 14:10; 40:84.
Commentary:
The enemies of truth never admit their defeat. They continue to seek new pretexts for refusing to believe in it. When the Jews were told that they had opposed the Prophets of God through covetousness (3:181-182), they retorted by saying that they did not oppose Muslims through covetousness but because, animals unlike them, the Muslims devoured even that which they offered as sacrifices, instead of burning them at the altar according to the Jewish Law (Lev. 1:11-17). Thus, it was not they but the Muslims who were greedy and covetous and they could not, therefore, consistently with the Law of Moses, accept the Prophet who did not observe that Law.
The Quran answers this objection by saying that the observance of the law about burnt offerings was no criterion to test the truth of a Prophet, because that could easily be done by an impostor. It was البینات (clear signs) only that demonstrated and established the truth of a claimant. But even if observance of burnt offerings was the criterion of a true Prophet, the Jews had no right to raise an objection; for in that case the question arose, why did they reject those Prophets who strictly conformed to that law? The fact that the Jewish demand referred to in the words, that which you speak of, has been mentioned in the verse separately from clear signs, shows that what the Jews spoke of was not a miracle, but that they were only referring to the law about burnt offerings, and not to the miracle of fire descending from heaven to consume a sacrifice, as is generally but wrongly believed.
a
5:33; 14:10; 40:84.
296
本节经文回答了犹太人反对火焚供品的理由。经文说, 遵守有关这种供品的法规绝不是考验先知的真诚的标准, 因为骗子也能轻而易举的做到这一点。只有 “明显的迹象” 才能证实宣称者的真诚。但即使遵守火焚供品是考验一个真诚的先知的标准, 犹太人也没有权利提出反对。这句话可使他们了解他们是应该谴责的; “他们为什么要否认那些严格遵守那条法规的先知?”
1
مراد یہ نہیں کہ آگ کہیں سے آکر اسے بھسم کر دیتی تھی بلکہ مراد اس قربانی سے تھی جو آگ میں جلا دی جاتی اور اسے سوختنی قربانی کہا جاتا تھا۔ ایسی قربانی کا رواج ہندوؤں، ایرانیوں اور یہود میں بہت تھا۔
b
5:33; 14:10; 40:84.
466
Commentary:
The enemies of truth never admit their defeat. They continue to seek new pretexts for refusing to believe in it. When the Jews were told that they had opposed the Prophets of God through covetousness (3:181-182), they retorted by saying that they did not oppose Muslims through covetousness but because, animals unlike them, the Muslims devoured even that which they offered as sacrifices, instead of burning them at the altar according to the Jewish Law (Lev. 1:11-17). Thus, it was not they but the Muslims who were greedy and covetous and they could not, therefore, consistently with the Law of Moses, accept the Prophet who did not observe that Law.
The Quran answers this objection by saying that the observance of the law about burnt offerings was no criterion to test the truth of a Prophet, because that could easily be done by an impostor. It was البینات (clear signs) only that demonstrated and established the truth of a claimant. But even if observance of burnt offerings was the criterion of a true Prophet, the Jews had no right to raise an objection; for in that case the question arose, why did they reject those Prophets who strictly conformed to that law? The fact that the Jewish demand referred to in the words, that which you speak of, has been mentioned in the verse separately from clear signs, shows that what the Jews spoke of was not a miracle, but that they were only referring to the law about burnt offerings, and not to the miracle of fire descending from heaven to consume a sacrifice, as is generally but wrongly believed.
a
5:33; 14:10; 40:84.
539
The verse answers the objection of the Jews about the burnt offerings by saying that the observance of the law regarding such offerings was no criterion to test the truth of a Prophet, because that could easily be done by an impostor. It was only "clear signs" that demonstrated and established the truth of a claimant. But even if observance of burnt offerings was the criterion of a true Prophet, the Jews had no right to raise an objection. The charge is driven home to them in the words, "Why did they reject those Prophets who strictly conformed to that law?"
وَلَقَدۡ اَرۡسَلۡنَا رُسُلًا مِّنۡ قَبۡلِکَ وَجَعَلۡنَا لَہُمۡ اَزۡوٰجًا وَّذُرِّیَّۃً ۚ وَمَا کَانَ لِرَسُوۡلٍ اَنۡ یَّاۡتِیَ بِاٰیَۃٍ اِلَّا بِاِذۡنِ اللّٰہِ ۗ لِکُلِّ اَجَلٍ کِتَابٌ
14:12; 40:79.
14:12; 40:79.
14:12; 40:79.
Commentary:
Disbelievers objected that the Holy Prophet had come without any worldly resources. The verse under comment replies to this objection by stating that earlier Prophets were also without any worldly resources. They, like him, had their physical needs and requirements. They, too, had wives and children whom they had to support and look after and had their duties to perform. Yet in spite of all the impediments and obstacles in their way and in spite of their physical needs and requirements and of the absence of material resources, they succeeded and triumphed. So shall the Holy Prophet.
The verse also makes it clear that signs of punishment are certainly shown to disbelievers but not at the time and in the form in which they demand them. The form and time of signs are determined by God alone, for they are shown only "by the command of Allah."
It may be asked here what, if God raised Messengers for the reformation of man, prevented Him from delegating to these Messengers the power of punishment, particularly when He knew that Signs would be demanded of them by their opponents and also when even earthly governments invest their officials with certain magisterial powers? Again, if God had invested His Prophets with the power to punish the people, it would have at least this advantage that the people would have feared and respected them and dared not oppose them. The Quran answers this question in the words, For every term there is a divine decree, which means that, as it is God Who determines the nature and form of each punishment and the time of its occurrence and He alone, being All-Knowing, knows in what form and at what time the sending down of a certain punishment will prove beneficial to the people, the power of punishing cannot be delegated to any other person. For if that delegation can at all be fair and useful, it must be accompanied by the delegation of many other divine powers, which is simply unthinkable. The infliction of punishment, therefore, could not be entrusted to the Prophets or to anybody else.
a
14:12; 40:79.
a
14:12; 40:79.
1649
Commentary:
Disbelievers objected that the Holy Prophet had come without any worldly resources. The verse under comment replies to this objection by stating that earlier Prophets were also without any worldly resources. They, like him, had their physical needs and requirements. They, too, had wives and children whom they had to support and look after and had their duties to perform. Yet in spite of all the impediments and obstacles in their way and in spite of their physical needs and requirements and of the absence of material resources, they succeeded and triumphed. So shall the Holy Prophet.
The verse also makes it clear that signs of punishment are certainly shown to disbelievers but not at the time and in the form in which they demand them. The form and time of signs are determined by God alone, for they are shown only "by the command of Allah."
It may be asked here what, if God raised Messengers for the reformation of man, prevented Him from delegating to these Messengers the power of punishment, particularly when He knew that Signs would be demanded of them by their opponents and also when even earthly governments invest their officials with certain magisterial powers? Again, if God had invested His Prophets with the power to punish the people, it would have at least this advantage that the people would have feared and respected them and dared not oppose them. The Quran answers this question in the words, For every term there is a divine decree, which means that, as it is God Who determines the nature and form of each punishment and the time of its occurrence and He alone, being All-Knowing, knows in what form and at what time the sending down of a certain punishment will prove beneficial to the people, the power of punishing cannot be delegated to any other person. For if that delegation can at all be fair and useful, it must be accompanied by the delegation of many other divine powers, which is simply unthinkable. The infliction of punishment, therefore, could not be entrusted to the Prophets or to anybody else.
c
14:12; 40:79.
وَلَقَدۡ اَرۡسَلۡنَا رُسُلًا مِّنۡ قَبۡلِکَ مِنۡہُمۡ مَّنۡ قَصَصۡنَا عَلَیۡکَ وَمِنۡہُمۡ مَّنۡ لَّمۡ نَقۡصُصۡ عَلَیۡکَ ۗ وَمَا کَانَ لِرَسُوۡلٍ اَنۡ یَّاۡتِیَ بِاٰیَۃٍ اِلَّا بِاِذۡنِ اللّٰہِ ۚ فَاِذَا جَآءَ اَمۡرُ اللّٰہِ قُضِیَ بِالۡحَقِّ وَخَسِرَ ہُنَالِکَ الۡمُبۡطِلُوۡنَ
13:39; 14:12.
4:165.
Though the prophecies containing warnings and threats meant for disbelievers are subject to postponement, revocation or cancellation, yet if, by closing the door of repentance upon themselves, they make themselves deserving of Divine punishment, they are punished. But it is not for the Prophet to say when and how they will be punished.
4:165.
13:39; 14:12.
Commentary:
The verse purports to say that though the prophecies containing warnings and threats meant for disbelievers are subject to postponement, revocation or cancel-lation, yet, if by closing the door of repentance, the disbelievers make themselves deserving of Divine punishment they are punished. But it is not for the Prophet to say when and how they are to be punished.
e
4:165.
f
13:39; 14:12.
1173
虽然对不信者具有警告和威吓作用的预言是可以延迟、撤回或取消的, 但是不信者如果给自己关上悔过之门, 那么, 他们就使自己应受安拉的惩罚, 他们就会受到惩罚。但是, 他们在何时和如何将被惩罚, 这却不是先知可以决定的事情。
a
4:165.
b
13:39; 14:12.
3549
Commentary:
The verse purports to say that though the prophecies containing warnings and threats meant for disbelievers are subject to postponement, revocation or cancel-lation, yet, if by closing the door of repentance, the disbelievers make themselves deserving of Divine punishment they are punished. But it is not for the Prophet to say when and how they are to be punished.
a
13:39; 14:12.
d
4:165.
2618
Though the prophecies containing warnings and threats meant for disbelievers are subject to postponement, revocation or cancellation, yet if, by closing the door of repentance upon themselves, they make themselves deserving of Divine punishment, they are punished. But it is not for the Prophet to say when and how they will be punished.