وَجَعَلُوا۟
Appears 7 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 7 verses containing "وَجَعَلُوا۟".
وَجَعَلُوا۟ لِلَّهِ شُرَكَآءَ ٱلْجِنَّ وَخَلَقَهُمْ ۖ وَخَرَقُوا۟ لَهُۥ بَنِينَ وَبَنَٰتٍۭ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ ۚ سُبْحَٰنَهُۥ وَتَعَٰلَىٰ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ
2:117; 9:31; 10:19.
Jinn are such beings as remain hidden or aloof from the common people. The verse signifies that man stumbles when he rejects Divine revelation and follows his own judgment and reason and associates the jinn and the angels as co-partners with God and attributes sons and daughters to Him.
2:117; 9:31; 10:19.
Important Words:
الجن (the jinn) is derived from the verb جن i.e. he covered up or concealed. The word here signifies such beings as remain aloof from the people, as if remaining concealed, e.g. kings and other potentates. In its wider significance the word extends to angels and other hidden creatures. See also 2:26; 6:77 & 6:129.
خرقوا (they falsely ascribe) is derived from خرق. They say خرقه i.e. he made a hole in it, or he cut it or tore it. خرق الارضmeans, he traversed or crossed the land by journeying so as to reach the furthest part thereof.
خرق الکذب means, he forged the lie. Sometimes the word خرق even when used without a qualifying word means, he forged a lie, or he lied, or he falsely ascribed something to somebody (Taj).
Commentary:
This verse draws attention to the way in which man stumbles when he rejects divine revelation and follows his own judgement and reason. It calls upon the reader to mark the difference between divine and man-made teachings. Men, unguided by divine light and following their own reason, have strayed so far away from the path of rectitude that some suppose the jinn (kings, etc.) to be co-partners with God, as did the Egyptians in the time of Moses; while others attribute sons and daughters to Him, as do the Christians, who have deified Jesus and believe him to be the son of God. A comparison of these man-made teachings with those revealed by God definitely proves the need of Divine revelation.
a
2:117; 9:31; 10:19.
444
جِنّ (Jinn, 大人物) 是一般人看不见, 或远离他们的这样一种人。这节经文意指, 人类在拒绝安拉的启示并听从他们自己的判断和推理把大人物和天使连系起来作为安拉的合伙者并认为安拉有儿女的时候, 他们就会走入邪道。
a
2:117; 9:31; 10:19.
843
Important Words:
الجن (the jinn) is derived from the verb جن i.e. he covered up or concealed. The word here signifies such beings as remain aloof from the people, as if remaining concealed, e.g. kings and other potentates. In its wider significance the word extends to angels and other hidden creatures. See also 2:26; 6:77 & 6:129.
خرقوا (they falsely ascribe) is derived from خرق. They say خرقه i.e. he made a hole in it, or he cut it or tore it. خرق الارضmeans, he traversed or crossed the land by journeying so as to reach the furthest part thereof.
خرق الکذب means, he forged the lie. Sometimes the word خرق even when used without a qualifying word means, he forged a lie, or he lied, or he falsely ascribed something to somebody (Taj).
Commentary:
This verse draws attention to the way in which man stumbles when he rejects divine revelation and follows his own judgement and reason. It calls upon the reader to mark the difference between divine and man-made teachings. Men, unguided by divine light and following their own reason, have strayed so far away from the path of rectitude that some suppose the jinn (kings, etc.) to be co-partners with God, as did the Egyptians in the time of Moses; while others attribute sons and daughters to Him, as do the Christians, who have deified Jesus and believe him to be the son of God. A comparison of these man-made teachings with those revealed by God definitely proves the need of Divine revelation.
a
2:117; 9:31; 10:19.
885
Jinn are such beings as remain hidden or aloof from the common people. The verse signifies that man stumbles when he rejects Divine revelation and follows his own judgment and reason and associates the jinn and the angels as co-partners with God and attributes sons and daughters to Him.
وَجَعَلُوا۟ لِلَّهِ مِمَّا ذَرَأَ مِنَ ٱلْحَرْثِ وَٱلْأَنْعَٰمِ نَصِيبًا فَقَالُوا۟ هَٰذَا لِلَّهِ بِزَعْمِهِمْ وَهَٰذَا لِشُرَكَآئِنَا ۖ فَمَا كَانَ لِشُرَكَآئِهِمْ فَلَا يَصِلُ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ ۖ وَمَا كَانَ لِلَّهِ فَهُوَ يَصِلُ إِلَىٰ شُرَكَآئِهِمْ ۗ سَآءَ مَا يَحْكُمُونَ
16:57.
16:57.
The reference is to an idolatrous custom of the Arabs. They would divide the produce of their lands between God and their deities. If the portion which they set apart for their deities was spent for other purposes, then the portion which they had reserved for God was given away as charity in the name of their deities, but if the portion set apart for God was spent for other ends, then the portion set aside for the deities was not transferred to God.
16:57.
Commentary:
Note the point and the force in the words, He has produced. By using these words, the Quran exposes the folly of disbelievers who are presumptuous enough to divide the produce of the earth and cattle between their deities and God, as if they were the owners; while the fact is that God is the owner of all these things and it is He Who has brought them into existence. They are God’s things, and it is strange that disbelievers should presume to divide God’s things according to their own choice, setting apart only a portion for God, the True Owner, and allotting the rest to their false deities.
Disbelievers gave two kinds of alms; firstly, in the name of God, and secondly, in the name of their deities. If the portion which they set apart for their deities was spent for other purposes, then the portion which they had reserved for God was also given away as charity in the name of their deities, but if the portion set apart for God was spent for other ends, then the portion set aside for the deities was not transferred to God. That is what is meant by the words, that which is for their idols reaches not Allah, while that which is for Allah reaches their idols. This is another instance of how men blunder, making laws with the sole aid of reason.
The expression, as they imagine, signifies that God does not accept a charity which false gods are made to share with Him. Disbelievers suppose that they have set apart a portion for God, but that is not really the portion of God, for the jealous God disdainfully rejects such allotment.
e
16:57.
a
16:57.
876
Commentary:
Note the point and the force in the words, He has produced. By using these words, the Quran exposes the folly of disbelievers who are presumptuous enough to divide the produce of the earth and cattle between their deities and God, as if they were the owners; while the fact is that God is the owner of all these things and it is He Who has brought them into existence. They are God’s things, and it is strange that disbelievers should presume to divide God’s things according to their own choice, setting apart only a portion for God, the True Owner, and allotting the rest to their false deities.
Disbelievers gave two kinds of alms; firstly, in the name of God, and secondly, in the name of their deities. If the portion which they set apart for their deities was spent for other purposes, then the portion which they had reserved for God was also given away as charity in the name of their deities, but if the portion set apart for God was spent for other ends, then the portion set aside for the deities was not transferred to God. That is what is meant by the words, that which is for their idols reaches not Allah, while that which is for Allah reaches their idols. This is another instance of how men blunder, making laws with the sole aid of reason.
The expression, as they imagine, signifies that God does not accept a charity which false gods are made to share with Him. Disbelievers suppose that they have set apart a portion for God, but that is not really the portion of God, for the jealous God disdainfully rejects such allotment.
d
16:57.
914
The reference is to an idolatrous custom of the Arabs. They would divide the produce of their lands between God and their deities. If the portion which they set apart for their deities was spent for other purposes, then the portion which they had reserved for God was given away as charity in the name of their deities, but if the portion set apart for God was spent for other ends, then the portion set aside for the deities was not transferred to God.
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.
وَجَعَلُوا۟ لِلَّهِ أَندَادًا لِّيُضِلُّوا۟ عَن سَبِيلِهِۦ ۗ قُلْ تَمَتَّعُوا۟ فَإِنَّ مَصِيرَكُمْ إِلَى ٱلنَّارِ
2:23; 13:34.
47:13; 77:47.
Important Words:
انداد (rivals) is the plural of ند which means the like of a thing particularly when it is opposed to it (Aqrab). See also 2:23.
Commentary:
The word اندادا (rivals), applied to those things that are taken as objects of worship instead of the true God, is used in this verse not because these gods or idols were actually opposed to God, or because the idolaters looked upon them as opposed to God, but because the very existence of such idols or gods is opposed to the dignity of God. The verse means that, after having rejected the Word of God, idolaters have taken to such foolish things as the worship of false deities in preference to the Living and Almighty God.
b
2:23; 13:34.
c
47:13; 77:47.
b
2:23; 13:34.
c
47:13; 77:47.
1685
Important Words:
انداد (rivals) is the plural of ند which means the like of a thing particularly when it is opposed to it (Aqrab). See also 2:23.
Commentary:
The word اندادا (rivals), applied to those things that are taken as objects of worship instead of the true God, is used in this verse not because these gods or idols were actually opposed to God, or because the idolaters looked upon them as opposed to God, but because the very existence of such idols or gods is opposed to the dignity of God. The verse means that, after having rejected the Word of God, idolaters have taken to such foolish things as the worship of false deities in preference to the Living and Almighty God.
b
2:23; 13:34.
c
47:13; 77:47.
وَجَعَلُوا۟ بَيْنَهُۥ وَبَيْنَ ٱلْجِنَّةِ نَسَبًا ۚ وَلَقَدْ عَلِمَتِ ٱلْجِنَّةُ إِنَّهُمْ لَمُحْضَرُونَ
6:101.
6:101.
6:101.
Commentary:
The verse means to say that morally and intellectually disbelievers have become so degraded that they assert blood-relationship between God and evil spirits. What greater folly and blasphemy could there possibly be?
e
6:101.
a
6:101.
3361
Commentary:
The verse means to say that morally and intellectually disbelievers have become so degraded that they assert blood-relationship between God and evil spirits. What greater folly and blasphemy could there possibly be?
d
6:101.
وَجَعَلُوا۟ لَهُۥ مِنْ عِبَادِهِۦ جُزْءًا ۚ إِنَّ ٱلْإِنسَٰنَ لَكَفُورٌ مُّبِينٌ
这里是指把伊撒 (耶稣) 认为是 “上帝之子” 的基督教教旨。
The reference is to the Christian doctrine of Jesus being God’s son.
Commentary:
The Surah had opened with the subject of revelation, of which the basic purpose is the establishment of Divine Unity. This and the following few verses repudiate the idolatrous doctrine of assigning sons and daughters to God.
1222
这里是指把伊撒 (耶稣) 认为是 “上帝之子” 的基督教教旨。
3652
Commentary:
The Surah had opened with the subject of revelation, of which the basic purpose is the establishment of Divine Unity. This and the following few verses repudiate the idolatrous doctrine of assigning sons and daughters to God.
2672A
The reference is to the Christian doctrine of Jesus being God’s son.
وَجَعَلُوا۟ ٱلْمَلَٰٓئِكَةَ ٱلَّذِينَ هُمْ عِبَٰدُ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ إِنَٰثًا ۚ أَشَهِدُوا۟ خَلْقَهُمْ ۚ سَتُكْتَبُ شَهَٰدَتُهُمْ وَيُسْـَٔلُونَ
17:41; 37:151; 52:40.
17:41; 37:151; 52:40.
17:41; 37:151; 52:40.
Commentary:
The verse does not mean that God is displeased with idolaters because they ascribe to Him daughters rather than sons, for, attributing sons is as hateful to Him as the ascribing of daughters (19:89-93). What the verse means to point out here is that these people ascribe to God what they do not like for themselves.
c
17:41; 37:151; 52:40.
a
17:41; 37:151; 52:40.
3654
Commentary:
The verse does not mean that God is displeased with idolaters because they ascribe to Him daughters rather than sons, for, attributing sons is as hateful to Him as the ascribing of daughters (19:89-93). What the verse means to point out here is that these people ascribe to God what they do not like for themselves.
a
17:41; 37:151; 52:40.