مِّنَ ٱلْقَوْلِ
Appears 2 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 2 verses containing "مِّنَ ٱلْقَوْلِ".
أَفَمَنْ هُوَ قَآئِمٌ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ نَفْسٍۭ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ ۗ وَجَعَلُوا۟ لِلَّهِ شُرَكَآءَ قُلْ سَمُّوهُمْ ۚ أَمْ تُنَبِّـُٔونَهُۥ بِمَا لَا يَعْلَمُ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ أَم بِظَٰهِرٍ مِّنَ ٱلْقَوْلِ ۗ بَلْ زُيِّنَ لِلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا۟ مَكْرُهُمْ وَصُدُّوا۟ عَنِ ٱلسَّبِيلِ ۗ وَمَن يُضْلِلِ ٱللَّهُ فَمَا لَهُۥ مِنْ هَادٍ
17:98; 39:24, 37.
6:101; 10:67; 13:17.
Idolaters are called upon to state what are the functions which their gods perform. The word 'name' in the verse does not mean personal name but attributive name, for the personal names of some of the gods have been given in the Qur’an itself (71:24); the words, do name them, may also be an expression of contempt, meaning that the gods of the disbelievers are so worthless that even the mention of their names would put them to shame.
It often happens that when a man commits a fraud or imposture in order to gain worldly advantage, he himself gradually falls a victim to his own imposture which gradually appears attractive to him.
6:101; 10:67; 13:17.
17:98; 39:24, 37.
Commentary:
The words, Who stands over every soul to note what it earns, contain another reason why God delays punishment. The argument is that as God is keeping close watch over every soul and nothing, however remote and secret, is hidden from His knowledge and He is also All-Powerful, He needs no hurry to punish the disbelievers; for if only punishment were the object, He could bring the offenders to book whenever He liked. The postponement of punishment is not therefore a thing to be scoffed or wondered at. The wonder rather is that disbelievers do not ponder over the fact that they are offenders against God’s Kingdom and yet they do not fear His punishment and desire to hasten it.
The words, they ascribe partners to Allah, mean that if disbelievers pondered over their own beliefs and actions they would readily discover that they were sinning against God by ascribing co-partners to Him and have therefore rightly incurred His displeasure.
The simple words, Say, Name them, embody a mighty argument against shirk. Idolaters are called upon to describe what function their gods perform. The word "name" in the verse does not mean personal name but attributive name, for the personal names of some of the gods have been given in the Quran itself (71:24). The demand that idolaters should name the functions of their gods is such as cannot fail to bring home to them the absurdity of their beliefs. Suppose, for instance, the idolaters say about one of their gods that his function or attribute is that he can or does bestow children. Now the possession of such a power by a god would imply that he has control not only over the birth of children but over numberless other things which have direct or indirect bearing on geniture. Thus, in order to bestow children, the god to whom this attribute is ascribed must have control over diet and medicinal drugs and must have control over even the working of man’s physical system. He must also have knowledge of hidden things so that he may know the genital defects of the parents and also know what medicine will suit the special circumstances of the case. Besides, he must be able to impart the knowledge of hidden things to others. For instance, he must be able to inspire the physician or the patient as to what medicine and what food will remove the defect. In short, until a god possesses an all-comprehensive knowledge and unlimited powers, he will not be able to perform even one single function. On the other hand, if it be supposed that each and every god possesses all the powers required for his special function, then the existence of so many gods would become superfluous, besides being a potential source of discord and disorder; for in that case each one of these gods would be the Supreme Being, a position which is impossible to imagine.
The words, Name them, may also be an expression of contempt, meaning that the gods of the disbelievers are so worthless that even the mention of their names would put them to shame.
The words, Would you inform Him of what He does not know in the earth?, contain yet another powerful argument against shirk. If there had been any other gods, argues the verse, the fact ought to have been made known by God Himself through a Prophet or through angels, or the alleged co-partners of God should themselves have made that announcement, but no such communication or announcement has ever been known to exist. Hence, the verse takes idolaters to task by telling them that by ascribing co-partners to God they presume to inform Him of something of which He Himself has no knowledge.
The expression, or is it a mere empty saying?, means that idolaters say these things only with their tongues and have no real faith in them. The verse asks disbelievers whether they really believe in what they allege. In this way, an appeal has been made to human nature, which often proves a very successful way of bringing home the truth.
It often happens that when a man commits a fraud or imposture in order to procure worldly advantage, he himself gradually falls a prey to his own imposture which, by and by, begins to appear attractive to him. Thus man’s design is made to look fair to him not by God, but by man himself. Some men ascribe divine powers to certain creatures, not because they really believe them to be gods beside Allah, but to impose upon simple-minded people and to cheat them of their possessions. But, as time goes on, their own trick begins to appeal to them, and they become the dupes of their own fraud. This is the significance of the words, Nay, but the design of the disbelievers has been made to appear beautiful in their eyes.
The expression, and they have been kept back from the right way, signifies that when a man severs his connection with God, he becomes involved in shirk, whether hidden or visible. Man cannot remain without a companion. When he leaves God, the inevitable result is that he begins to seek the support of petty things, which gradually gives rise to shirk.
Here the Quran differs from the students of comparative religion. According to the latter, polytheism preceded the belief in one God. According to the Quran the reverse is true, and history supports the Quran. We see that Muslims and Jews were worshippers of one God in the beginning, but afterwards many of them virtually reverted to polytheism and idolatry. The case of Christians is still worse. They were first believers in the Unity of God but took to deifying Jesus afterwards and the whole community became stuck in the quagmire of shirk. Why should we not assume that the same was the case with the peoples of remote antiquity?
a
17:98; 39:24, 37.
e
6:101; 10:67; 13:17.
a
6:101; 10:67; 13:17.
b
17:98; 39:24, 37.
1645
Commentary:
The words, Who stands over every soul to note what it earns, contain another reason why God delays punishment. The argument is that as God is keeping close watch over every soul and nothing, however remote and secret, is hidden from His knowledge and He is also All-Powerful, He needs no hurry to punish the disbelievers; for if only punishment were the object, He could bring the offenders to book whenever He liked. The postponement of punishment is not therefore a thing to be scoffed or wondered at. The wonder rather is that disbelievers do not ponder over the fact that they are offenders against God’s Kingdom and yet they do not fear His punishment and desire to hasten it.
The words, they ascribe partners to Allah, mean that if disbelievers pondered over their own beliefs and actions they would readily discover that they were sinning against God by ascribing co-partners to Him and have therefore rightly incurred His displeasure.
The simple words, Say, Name them, embody a mighty argument against shirk. Idolaters are called upon to describe what function their gods perform. The word "name" in the verse does not mean personal name but attributive name, for the personal names of some of the gods have been given in the Quran itself (71:24). The demand that idolaters should name the functions of their gods is such as cannot fail to bring home to them the absurdity of their beliefs. Suppose, for instance, the idolaters say about one of their gods that his function or attribute is that he can or does bestow children. Now the possession of such a power by a god would imply that he has control not only over the birth of children but over numberless other things which have direct or indirect bearing on geniture. Thus, in order to bestow children, the god to whom this attribute is ascribed must have control over diet and medicinal drugs and must have control over even the working of man’s physical system. He must also have knowledge of hidden things so that he may know the genital defects of the parents and also know what medicine will suit the special circumstances of the case. Besides, he must be able to impart the knowledge of hidden things to others. For instance, he must be able to inspire the physician or the patient as to what medicine and what food will remove the defect. In short, until a god possesses an all-comprehensive knowledge and unlimited powers, he will not be able to perform even one single function. On the other hand, if it be supposed that each and every god possesses all the powers required for his special function, then the existence of so many gods would become superfluous, besides being a potential source of discord and disorder; for in that case each one of these gods would be the Supreme Being, a position which is impossible to imagine.
The words, Name them, may also be an expression of contempt, meaning that the gods of the disbelievers are so worthless that even the mention of their names would put them to shame.
The words, Would you inform Him of what He does not know in the earth?, contain yet another powerful argument against shirk. If there had been any other gods, argues the verse, the fact ought to have been made known by God Himself through a Prophet or through angels, or the alleged co-partners of God should themselves have made that announcement, but no such communication or announcement has ever been known to exist. Hence, the verse takes idolaters to task by telling them that by ascribing co-partners to God they presume to inform Him of something of which He Himself has no knowledge.
The expression, or is it a mere empty saying?, means that idolaters say these things only with their tongues and have no real faith in them. The verse asks disbelievers whether they really believe in what they allege. In this way, an appeal has been made to human nature, which often proves a very successful way of bringing home the truth.
It often happens that when a man commits a fraud or imposture in order to procure worldly advantage, he himself gradually falls a prey to his own imposture which, by and by, begins to appear attractive to him. Thus man’s design is made to look fair to him not by God, but by man himself. Some men ascribe divine powers to certain creatures, not because they really believe them to be gods beside Allah, but to impose upon simple-minded people and to cheat them of their possessions. But, as time goes on, their own trick begins to appeal to them, and they become the dupes of their own fraud. This is the significance of the words, Nay, but the design of the disbelievers has been made to appear beautiful in their eyes.
The expression, and they have been kept back from the right way, signifies that when a man severs his connection with God, he becomes involved in shirk, whether hidden or visible. Man cannot remain without a companion. When he leaves God, the inevitable result is that he begins to seek the support of petty things, which gradually gives rise to shirk.
Here the Quran differs from the students of comparative religion. According to the latter, polytheism preceded the belief in one God. According to the Quran the reverse is true, and history supports the Quran. We see that Muslims and Jews were worshippers of one God in the beginning, but afterwards many of them virtually reverted to polytheism and idolatry. The case of Christians is still worse. They were first believers in the Unity of God but took to deifying Jesus afterwards and the whole community became stuck in the quagmire of shirk. Why should we not assume that the same was the case with the peoples of remote antiquity?
a
17:98; 39:24, 37.
c
6:101; 10:67; 13:17.
1445
Idolaters are called upon to state what are the functions which their gods perform. The word 'name' in the verse does not mean personal name but attributive name, for the personal names of some of the gods have been given in the Qur’an itself (71:24); the words, do name them, may also be an expression of contempt, meaning that the gods of the disbelievers are so worthless that even the mention of their names would put them to shame.
1446
It often happens that when a man commits a fraud or imposture in order to gain worldly advantage, he himself gradually falls a victim to his own imposture which gradually appears attractive to him.
ٱلَّذِينَ يُظَٰهِرُونَ مِنكُم مِّن نِّسَآئِهِم مَّا هُنَّ أُمَّهَٰتِهِمْ ۖ إِنْ أُمَّهَٰتُهُمْ إِلَّا ٱلَّٰٓـِٔى وَلَدْنَهُمْ ۚ وَإِنَّهُمْ لَيَقُولُونَ مُنكَرًا مِّنَ ٱلْقَوْلِ وَزُورًا ۚ وَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَعَفُوٌّ غَفُورٌ
سورۂ احزاب میں کہا گیا تھا کہ نبی کی بیویاں مومنوں کی مائیں ہیں۔ اب یہ کہا گیا ہے کہ کوئی اپنی بیوی کو ماں کہہ بیٹھے تو وہ ماں نہیں ہو جاتی۔ اس میں اختلاف نہیں۔ کیونکہ کسی انسان کے کہنے سے کوئی عورت ماں نہیں ہو سکتی۔ لیکن اگر خداتعالیٰ کسی عورت کو ماں قرار دے تو چونکہ حقوق کا قائم کرنے والا وہی ہے اس کے حکم کے ماتحت ایک عورت ماں بن سکتی ہے پھر یہ بھی یاد رکھنا چاہیے کہ یہ منفی حکم ہے کسی کے حقوق کو اس میں تلف نہیں کیا گیا۔ نہ کسی جان پر کوئی زائد حق ڈالے گئے ہیں۔
33:5
Commentary:
Zihar or calling ones wife "mother" has been declared here a heinous sin. For a somewhat detailed note see 33:5.
The words لعفو غفور mean that God in His great mercy has made allowance for man’s weakness and that He is always ready to forgive his lapses, provided he comes to God with a penitent heart and makes amends.
The verse has redeemed a right which through a cruel custom was denied to women and thus has raised them to the status to which they were entitled.
1
سورۂ احزاب میں کہا گیا تھا کہ نبی کی بیویاں مومنوں کی مائیں ہیں۔ اب یہ کہا گیا ہے کہ کوئی اپنی بیوی کو ماں کہہ بیٹھے تو وہ ماں نہیں ہو جاتی۔ اس میں اختلاف نہیں۔ کیونکہ کسی انسان کے کہنے سے کوئی عورت ماں نہیں ہو سکتی۔ لیکن اگر خداتعالیٰ کسی عورت کو ماں قرار دے تو چونکہ حقوق کا قائم کرنے والا وہی ہے اس کے حکم کے ماتحت ایک عورت ماں بن سکتی ہے پھر یہ بھی یاد رکھنا چاہیے کہ یہ منفی حکم ہے کسی کے حقوق کو اس میں تلف نہیں کیا گیا۔ نہ کسی جان پر کوئی زائد حق ڈالے گئے ہیں۔
b
33:5
4173
Commentary:
Zihar or calling ones wife "mother" has been declared here a heinous sin. For a somewhat detailed note see 33:5.
The words لعفو غفور mean that God in His great mercy has made allowance for man’s weakness and that He is always ready to forgive his lapses, provided he comes to God with a penitent heart and makes amends.
The verse has redeemed a right which through a cruel custom was denied to women and thus has raised them to the status to which they were entitled.