یَضُرُّہُمۡ
Appears 3 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 3 verses containing "یَضُرُّہُمۡ".
وَاتَّبَعُوۡا مَا تَتۡلُوا الشَّیٰطِیۡنُ عَلٰی مُلۡکِ سُلَیۡمٰنَ ۖ وَمَا کَفَرَ سُلَیۡمٰنُ وَلٰکِنَّ الشَّیٰطِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا یُعَلِّمُوۡنَ النَّاسَ السِّحۡرَ وَمَاۤ اُنۡزِلَ عَلَی الۡمَلَکَیۡنِ بِبَابِلَ ہٰرُوۡتَ وَمٰرُوۡتَ ۚ وَمَا یُعَلِّمَانِ مِنۡ اَحَدٍ حَتّٰی یَقُوۡلَاۤ اِنَّمَا نَحۡنُ فِتۡنَۃٌ فَلَا تَکۡفُرۡ ۖ فَیَتَعَلَّمُوۡنَ مِنۡہُمَا مَا یُفَرِّقُوۡنَ بِہٖ بَیۡنَ الۡمَرۡءِ وَزَوۡجِہٖ ۚ وَمَا ہُمۡ بِضَآرِّیۡنَ بِہٖ مِنۡ اَحَدٍ اِلَّا بِاِذۡنِ اللّٰہِ ۚ وَیَتَعَلَّمُوۡنَ مَا یَضُرُّہُمۡ وَلَا یَنۡفَعُہُمۡ ۚ وَلَقَدۡ عَلِمُوۡا لَمَنِ اشۡتَرٰٮہُ مَا لَہٗ فِی الۡاٰخِرَۃِ مِنۡ خَلٰقٍ ۚ وَلَبِئۡسَ مَا شَرَوۡا بِہٖۤ اَنۡفُسَہُمۡ ۚ لَوۡ کَانُوۡا یَعۡلَمُوۡنَ
هَارُوْت (Harut, 哈鲁特) 和 مَارُوْت (Marut, 马鲁特) 都是形容性名称, 前者来自هَرَتَ (Harata) 即他摧毁 (اَقْرَبْ), 意指摧毁者; 而后者来自 مَرَتَ (Marata) 即他破坏, 意指破坏者。这两个名称意味着这两位圣洁的人出现的目的是 “粉碎” 和 “破坏” 古以色列人敌国的光荣和权利。这两位圣洁的人一开始就告诉新成员们, 这是来自安拉的一种考验, 作分辩善恶之用。它们只限于社会成员中的男性。本节经文表明, 在穆圣时期的犹太人一味干着素莱曼 (所罗们) 时代他们的祖先所沉溺的、同样的阴谋诡计。经文又说素莱曼时代的那些作乱者, 就是称他 (素菜曼) 为不信宗教者。本节经文消除了对素莱曼不信的责备。经文又说, 素莱曼时代这些害人精为了欺骗人们和隐瞒他们的真实企图, 授给他们的伙伴一些隐语, 这些隐语传达给他们与一般所了解的完全不同的含义。本节经文间接提到了素莱曼的敌人对他进行的密谋策划, 企图藉此来分裂他的帝国。这暗指, 麦地那的犹太人正在采取卑鄙的手法来反对穆圣, 但是他们的邪恶谋划永不会得逞。
“两位天使” 这词在这里指两位圣洁的人 (12:32), 因为这里是说, 这两位天使在教导人们某些事情而天使并不生活在人间, 也不与人有自由交往。(17:95; 21:8)
犹太人看到伊斯兰教的势力在稳步扩展, 而在阿拉伯半岛反对它的势力已彻底崩溃以致他们不能阻止或妨碍它的发展, 这时他们便开始煽动局外人来反对它。在基督教统治者们的压迫和残害下, 他们原在波斯避难, 早把它们宗教中心地从犹太转移到巴比伦王国 (Hutchinson编History of Nations 550页)。他们逐渐对波斯君主王朝的宫廷施加巨大的影响, 并开始策划反对伊斯兰教的阴谋。当乔所罗斯 (Chosroes) 二世收到穆圣邀他接受伊斯兰教的信时, 他们成功地怂恿他给也门--------当时是波斯的一个省--------省长巴德汉 (بَاذَان, Badhan) 发布命令, 逮捕穆圣, 并把囚禁的穆圣送上波斯法庭。本节经文间接提到的正是穆圣时期犹太人的这些阴谋诡计。这件事引起了他们的注意力: 即他们的祖先当初也曾策划反对素莱曼的阴谋。那时他们集团中的某些成员建立起反对他的结社, 在社的内部教以秘密的符号和代号 («列王纪上» 11:29-32; «列王纪上»11:14, 23, 26; «历代志下» 10:2-4) 他们第二次求助于秘密结社是在尼布加尼撒 (Nebuchadnezzar) 国王时代, 他们在巴比伦被监禁期间。本节经文中所提到的圣洁的人是先知哈基 (Haggai) 和伊多 (Iddo) 的儿子扎格里亚 (Zachariah) («以斯拉记» 5:1)。这两位圣洁的人把他们协会的会员限制在男性之内, 并在一开始就告诉新会员:他们是来自安拉的一种考验, 因此古以色列人不应不信从他们所说的话。当米堤亚 (Media) 和波斯 (Persia) 的国王塞鲁士 (Cyrus) 登基时, 古以色列人同他达成一项秘密协议, 这大大促进了他征服巴比伦。作为这一贡献的报答, 塞鲁士不仅允许他们返回耶路撒冷, 而且帮助他们重建素菜曼圣殿 («史学家的世界史», II. 126)。本节经文暗示, 犹太人前两次的努力得到不同的结果。第一次针对素菜曼的阴谋以完全失去他们的威望并最后被放逐到巴比伦而告终。第二次, 他们在两位受安拉启示的人物的领导下采取类似方针而获得成功。因此, 为了指出犹太人反对穆圣的企图是否会像他们在素莱曼时代那样遭到失败, 或是像在巴比伦时代那样而获得成功, «古兰
经» 说: “(穆圣的反对者) 正在学习对他们有害而无益的东西。” 暗示他们不会像他们的祖先那样在巴比伦获得成功。
شَیْطَان کے معنے ہیں کُلُّ عَاتٍ مُّتَمَرِّدٍ: ہر سرکش اور حد سے بڑھنے والا (اقرب) مفردات راغب میں بھی وَاتَّبَعُوْا مَا تَتْلُوا الشَّیٰـطِیْنُ میں شیاطین سے سرکش انسان مراد لئے گئے ہیں۔ اس لئے ہم نے ترجمہ میں ’’باغی‘‘ کا لفظ استعمال کیا ہے۔
دو فرشتوں یعنی دو فرشتہ خصلت آدمیوں پر (تفصیل کے لئے دیکھیں تفسیر کبیر سورۃ البقرۃ جلد دوم صفحہ ۶۵)۔
یُفَرِّقُوۡنَ بِہٖ بَیۡنَ الۡمَرۡءِ وَ زَوۡجِہٖ یعنی وہ خاص دینی تعلیم ان کو دیتے تھے جس کی وجہ سے جو عورت ایمان لے آتی تھی‘ وہ ایمان نہ لانے والے مرد کی پروا نہیں کرتی تھی اور جو مرد ایمان لے آتا تھا وہ ایمان نہ لانے والی عورت کی پروا نہیں کرتا تھا‘ بلکہ اگر میاں بیوی میں سے بیوی ایمان لے آتی تو وہ اس تعلیم کو جو اسے سکھائی جاتی تھی مقدم رکھ کر اپنے خاوند سے اپنی جماعت کی باتیں چھپانے لگ جاتی اور اگر مرد ایمان لے آتا تو وہ اپنی بیوی سے باتیں چھپانے لگ جاتا اور دونوں ایک دوسرے کو اپنا راز دار نہیں بناتے تھے۔ صرف خدا تعالیٰ کے رسول یا اس کے نائبوں کو راز دار بنات
Talautu-hu means, I followed him (Lane).
‘Ala gives the sense of fi, i.e. "in" or "during" and "against" (Mughni). The particle is also used in the Qur’an in the sense of "in conformity with" (2:113); assigning a cause (2:186); in the sense of fi (28:16) and min (83:3). Tala ‘Alaihi also means, he lied against him (Taj, Muhit & Razi).
Sihr means, a crafty device; mischief; enchantment; producing what is false in the form of truth; any event of which the cause is hidden and which is imagined to be different from what it really is (Lane). Thus every falsehood, deceit or crafty device which is meant to hide the real object from public view is included in Sihr.
The word "two angels" here signifies two holy men (12:32), because the two angels are here mentioned as teaching something to the people and angels do not live among men and do not have free intercourse with them (17:95; 21:8).
Harut and Marut are both descriptive names, the former being derived from Harata, (i.e. he tore up—Aqrab) means, one who tears up; and the latter derived from Marata, (i.e. he broke) means, one who breaks. These names signify that the object of the appearance of these holy men was to 'tear asunder' and 'break' the glory and power of the empire of the enemies of the Israelites. These holy men told the new members, at the time of initiation, that they were a sort of trial from God, serving to differentiate between the good and the bad. They confined the membership of their society to the males only. The verse signifies that the Jews in the time of the Holy Prophet indulged in the same mischievous devices and practices which characterized their forefathers in the days of Solomon. It further says that the mischief-mongers in Solomon’s time were those rebellious men who called him a disbeliever. The verse clears Solomon of the accusation of disbelief. It adds that the mischief-mongers in Solom
When the Jews saw that the power of Islam was steadily expanding and opposition to it in Arabia had completely broken down and they could not arrest or retard its progress, they began to excite outsiders against it. Oppressed and persecuted by Christian rulers they had taken refuge in Persia and had shifted their religious centre from Judah to Babylonia (Hutchinson’s History of the Nations, p. 550). Gradually, they came to exercise great influence at the court of the Persian Monarchs and began to hatch plots against Islam. When Chosroes II received a letter from the Holy Prophet inviting him to accept Islam, they succeeded in instigating him to issue orders to Badhan, the Governor of Yemen, which was then a province of Persia, to arrest and send the Holy Prophet in chains to the Persian court. It is to these plots and machinations of the Jews in the Prophet’s time that the verse alludes. Their attention is invited to the fact that their forefathers had also hatched plots first against Solomon when some
Important Words:
تتلوا (followed). See 2:114
شیاطین (rebellious men). See 2:15.
علی (during) gives the sense of فی i.e. "in" or "during" (Aqrab & Mughni). It is also used to denote a hostile sense meaning "against", as one says خرج علیه i.e. he rebelled against him, or he went out against him with an army intending to fight (Wright). In this sense the phrase علی ملك سلیمان would mean, against the government of Solomon, or conspiring against his government.
سحر (falsehood and deception). In verbal senses سحرہ means, he deceived him; he coaxed him and involved him in trouble and deprived him of his understanding; he enchanted him. سحرالفضة means, he coated a piece of silver so as to make it look like gold. The noun سحر means, anything the source of which is not quite visible; showing off falsehood in the form of truth; a crafty device; craftiness; mischief; enchantment (Aqrab). It also means, producing what is false in the form of truth; any event of which the cause is hidden and which is imagined to be different from what it really is; embellishment by falsification and deceit (Lane). Thus every falsehood, deceit or crafty device which is meant to hide the real object from public view is included in the meaning of سحر.
ملكین (two angels) is the dual number from ملك (angel) for which see 2:31. Figuratively ملك is sometimes used to denote a handsome or holy person, as the Quran says, He (Joseph) is but a gracious angel, i.e. a handsome and pious youth (12:32). As in the verse under comment, the two angels are described as teaching something to the people, therefore the word cannot be taken in its literal significance, because angels do not live among men and do not generally have free intercourse with them (17:95, 96; 21:8). Thus in the present verse ملکین would not mean "two angels" in the literal sense of the word but "two holy men".
ھاروت (Harut) and ماروت (Marut) are both descriptive names. ھاروت is derived from ھرت which means, he tore up (Aqrab); hence ھاروت means, one who tears; the tearer. ماروت is derived from مرت which means, he broke (Aqrab & Lane). Thus ماروت means, one who breaks; the breaker. These names signify that the object of the appearance of these holy men was to 'tear' asunder and 'break' the glory and power of certain people.
فتنة (trial) means, the trial or means whereby the condition of a man may be demonstrated in respect of good or evil (Lane). They say فتن الصائغ الذھب i.e. the goldsmith melted the gold in the crucible so that its purity or impurity might be ascertained (Aqrab).
Commentary:
Many a legend unwarranted by the Quran and the Hadith—and even running contrary to them—clusters round this verse. It would be quite unreasonable to interpret it on the basis of those myths. For their true interpretation no external evidence is needed, the words being self-explanatory. It is clear from the verse itself that Jews in the time of the Holy Prophet were bent upon the same mischief which characterized them in the days of Solomon and during the days of their captivity in Babylon. The verse further indicates that the mischief-mongers of Solomon’s time were those "rebellious men" who called him an unbeliever. God says that those wicked men themselves, and not Solomon, lacked belief. Again, the verse tells us that these men taught their associates such signs as conveyed to them meanings quite different from those generally accepted, for the purpose of deceiving other people and concealing their own activities. All this leads to the conclusion that this verse alludes to those secret plots which the enemies of Solomon made against him, and by which they wished to break his empire. It is pointed out that now, in the time of the Holy Prophet, these people are resorting to the selfsame tactics, but that they will fail.
As the verse refers to a number of historical events, it is advisable to relate them here at some length.
When Jews saw that the power of Islam was steadily expanding and that no opposition from the Arabs had been able to arrest the progress of Muslims, they began to excite outsiders against them. At that time there were two large empires in the neighbourhood of Arabia: (1) The Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire; and (2) The Persian Empire. As Jews were already at enmity with the Roman Government, because they were in constant trouble under it, so it was only the Persian Government to which they could look for support. Harassed by the oppression of Christian rulers, they had taken refuge in Persia, where they enjoyed a good deal of religious freedom, and their religious centre shifted from Judah and Jerusalem to Babylonia (Hutchinson’s History of the Nations, p.550). In the seventh century of the Christian era, i.e., during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, Jews suffered exceptionally cruel persecution at the hands of the Christian Emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire. "Both Phocas and Heraclius", says the Historians’ History of the World (vol. 7, p. 175), "attempted to exterminate the Jewish religion, and if possible to put an end to their national existence. Heraclius not only practised every species of cruelty himself to effect this object within the bounds of his own dominions, but he even made the forced conversion or banishment of the Jews a prominent feature in his diplomacy." So, in the time of the Holy Prophet the only government to which the Jews could look for help was that of Persia, where their co-religionists enjoyed much influence, especially in the reign of Chosroes II (Jew. Enc., ix. 648).
Consequently, when the Jews saw that their efforts to check the progress of Islam had totally failed, they took to exciting the Persian Court against the Holy Prophet by various means; and as a result, Chosroes II issued orders to the Governor of Yemen to send to him the Arabian claimant as a captive. But when the envoys of the Governor came to the Holy Prophet, he asked them to see him the next day, when he told them that God had informed him that He had their king murdered. Thereupon they returned and related this incident to the Governor. A few days later, the Governor received a letter from Siroes, the son of Chosroes II, to the effect that he had killed his father on account of the latter’s tyranny and that the Governor should, on his behalf, renew the oath of allegiance from all the Chiefs of Yemen; and that the order of his father regarding an Arab should be considered as cancelled (Tabari, iii. 1573-1574).
Some historians, including Tabari himself, hold that it was the letter of the Holy Prophet to the king of Persia inviting him to Islam that was the occasion of his orders for the apprehension of the Holy Prophet. But on comparison of the dates of the above-mentioned events, this turns out to be a mistaken view. For, as we read in Zurqani (ii. 211-212), the letter in question was despatched from Medina on the first of Muharram, 7 A.H.–a date corresponding to 12th April, 628 A.D. (Lane under ھجرة); whereas Chosroes II, who sent orders for the arrest of the Holy Prophet, had been assassinated on the 29th of February, 628 A.D. (Historians’ History of the World, viii. 95). Thus the view that the letter of the Holy Prophet was the cause of Chosroes’ orders is quite untenable; and the only possible cause of Chosroes’ ignominious orders was that his ears had been poisoned by malicious reports, a fact admitted by Sir William Muir (The Life of Mahomet, p. 370). It is to these efforts of the Jews that the Quran alludes in the verse under comment.
The verse also points out that it was foolish on the part of the Jews to suppose that they would succeed in that way. Their attention is invited to the fact that they had already been responsible for two secret plots. The first was against Solomon, when some members of their community turned rebels, hatched plots and stirred up bitter feeling against him by calling him an infidel; whereas the infidels were those who opposed him, hurled imputations at him, and set up against him secret societies in which secret signs and symbols were taught. The Jews, however, themselves reaped the ill-reward of their sinister schemes: their power, as a consequence, fell into decay, and at last they became so powerless that they were driven into exile towards Babylon. This account of Jewish secret societies and conspiracies and treacherous signs and symbols, as alluded to in this verse, finds corroboration in the Bible (1 Kings 11:1-6), where we read that the charge of idol-worship was spread against Solomon. An account of his enemies is found in I Kings 11:14, 23, 26, and a reference to secret plots is met with in II Chron. 10: 2-4 where we learn that the Jews had sent for Jeroboam, a bitter enemy of Solomon, immediately after his death and had attempted to make Solomon’s son agree to some demands of theirs, involving certain imputations against Solomon, before his accession to the throne. We learn about the secret signs from I Kings 11:29-32, in which the ten tribes of the Israelites are likened to ten pieces of a garment, and Jeroboam is told that these ten tribes were on his side against Solomon; and so it proved to be, for on the death of Solomon, these ten tribes made Jeroboam their king (I Kings 12:20). Again, the reference of the Quran to the infidelity of Solomon’s enemies finds corroboration in II Chron. 11:15, from which we learn that his enemies, who falsely charged him with unbelief, themselves fell into idol-worship when they rose to power.
Besides the testimony of the Bible, there is other evidence to show that in the days of Solomon a secret society was at work against him. An old tradition, current among medieval Freemasons, indicates that Solomon was envious of the superior intelligence of Hiram, the chief architect who built the Temple at Jerusalem. He is said to have attempted to kill the great Mason by having him thrown into a tank of molten brass, but he was saved by the spirit of his ancestor, Cain, who prophesied that at last his people would get the better of their enemy. Solomon, however, as the tradition goes, had him afterwards put to death. It is said of him that he had fixed certain secret signs which were a sort of mystery known only to him and his associates (Secret Societies of the World, Volume II, pp. 1-8; as the original book could not be obtained, the reference is to an Urdu translation). We further learn from this book that before the period of the Accepted Masons, the same signs used in all the Lodges were current among the Masons of Solomon’s time (p. 11) and that at the time of initiation, the Hiram incident was related to the new member (pp. 29, 30). However incredible the story as a whole may be, it points at least to the conclusion that in one way or other, secret societies were associated with Solomon’s reign and were much in vogue in his time.
The second occasion when, according to the Quran, the Israelites had resort to secret societies was during their captivity in Babylon. But this time they were not acting against any Prophet but were, on the other hand, working under the leadership of two inspired personages, who were, in obedience to divine command, trying to bring about the deliverance of the Israelites. Their mission was to "tear asunder" and "break down" the empire of the enemies of the Israelites. These holy men told new members, at the time of initiation, that they were a sort of trial from God, serving to differentiate between the good and the bad, and that the Israelites should not therefore refuse to believe what they said, because this would lead them to infidelity. In their teachings they drew a distinction between males and females, confining membership to males only (this is an old practice found among most secret societies). It is also stated that the disciples of these holy men directed their activities against only those for whose chastisement they were commissioned by God.
In this narration, the Quran refers to the days when King Nebuchadnezzar brought the Jews as captives into Babylon and kept them there for a long time. The holy men referred to in the verse under comment were Haggai, the Prophet, and Zechariah, the son of Iddo (Ezra 5:1). When Cyrus, King of Media and Persia, rose to power, the Israelites entered into a secret agreement with him and greatly facilitated his conquest of Babylon. In return for this service, he not only allowed them to return to their own country but also helped in the rebuilding of the Temple (Historians’ History of the World, ii. 126).
After stating that the Jews of the Holy Prophet’s time were following the same course which was adopted by the rebels of Solomon’s days and which was later adopted by the Jews under two holy men in Babylon, it was necessary here to state the ultimate upshot of their efforts against the Holy Prophet, because on the two previous occasion’s their efforts had met with different results. On the first occasion the conspiracy of the Israelites, being directed against a Prophet of God, had ended in the total loss of their prestige and finally in their banishment to Babylon. On the second occasion, they took a similar course under two inspired personages and were successful. Hence, in order to indicate whether the efforts of the Jews against the Holy Prophet would meet with failure, as they did in the days of Solomon, or with success as in Babylon, the Quran says: these people are learning that which would harm them and do them no good; hinting that they will not be successful as in Babylon. Accordingly, the consequence of their hostile efforts against the Holy Prophet was that Chosroes, their only supporter, met his death at the hands of his son, and they themselves were exiled from Arabia in the time of ‘Umar. In the concluding portion of the verse, God adds: And they have certainly known that he who trafficks therein has no share of good in the Hereafter, meaning that a mischievous plotter never succeeds ultimately. The last clause, had they but known, throws a flood of light on how intensely God desires that His creatures should always take the right course and not be misled by mischievous people.
71
هَارُوْت (Harut, 哈鲁特) 和 مَارُوْت (Marut, 马鲁特) 都是形容性名称, 前者来自هَرَتَ (Harata) 即他摧毁 (اَقْرَبْ), 意指摧毁者; 而后者来自 مَرَتَ (Marata) 即他破坏, 意指破坏者。这两个名称意味着这两位圣洁的人出现的目的是 “粉碎” 和 “破坏” 古以色列人敌国的光荣和权利。这两位圣洁的人一开始就告诉新成员们, 这是来自安拉的一种考验, 作分辩善恶之用。它们只限于社会成员中的男性。本节经文表明, 在穆圣时期的犹太人一味干着素莱曼 (所罗们) 时代他们的祖先所沉溺的、同样的阴谋诡计。经文又说素莱曼时代的那些作乱者, 就是称他 (素菜曼) 为不信宗教者。本节经文消除了对素莱曼不信的责备。经文又说, 素莱曼时代这些害人精为了欺骗人们和隐瞒他们的真实企图, 授给他们的伙伴一些隐语, 这些隐语传达给他们与一般所了解的完全不同的含义。本节经文间接提到了素莱曼的敌人对他进行的密谋策划, 企图藉此来分裂他的帝国。这暗指, 麦地那的犹太人正在采取卑鄙的手法来反对穆圣, 但是他们的邪恶谋划永不会得逞。
72
“两位天使” 这词在这里指两位圣洁的人 (12:32), 因为这里是说, 这两位天使在教导人们某些事情而天使并不生活在人间, 也不与人有自由交往。(17:95; 21:8)
73
犹太人看到伊斯兰教的势力在稳步扩展, 而在阿拉伯半岛反对它的势力已彻底崩溃以致他们不能阻止或妨碍它的发展, 这时他们便开始煽动局外人来反对它。在基督教统治者们的压迫和残害下, 他们原在波斯避难, 早把它们宗教中心地从犹太转移到巴比伦王国 (Hutchinson编History of Nations 550页)。他们逐渐对波斯君主王朝的宫廷施加巨大的影响, 并开始策划反对伊斯兰教的阴谋。当乔所罗斯 (Chosroes) 二世收到穆圣邀他接受伊斯兰教的信时, 他们成功地怂恿他给也门--------当时是波斯的一个省--------省长巴德汉 (بَاذَان, Badhan) 发布命令, 逮捕穆圣, 并把囚禁的穆圣送上波斯法庭。本节经文间接提到的正是穆圣时期犹太人的这些阴谋诡计。这件事引起了他们的注意力: 即他们的祖先当初也曾策划反对素莱曼的阴谋。那时他们集团中的某些成员建立起反对他的结社, 在社的内部教以秘密的符号和代号 («列王纪上» 11:29-32; «列王纪上»11:14, 23, 26; «历代志下» 10:2-4) 他们第二次求助于秘密结社是在尼布加尼撒 (Nebuchadnezzar) 国王时代, 他们在巴比伦被监禁期间。本节经文中所提到的圣洁的人是先知哈基 (Haggai) 和伊多 (Iddo) 的儿子扎格里亚 (Zachariah) («以斯拉记» 5:1)。这两位圣洁的人把他们协会的会员限制在男性之内, 并在一开始就告诉新会员:他们是来自安拉的一种考验, 因此古以色列人不应不信从他们所说的话。当米堤亚 (Media) 和波斯 (Persia) 的国王塞鲁士 (Cyrus) 登基时, 古以色列人同他达成一项秘密协议, 这大大促进了他征服巴比伦。作为这一贡献的报答, 塞鲁士不仅允许他们返回耶路撒冷, 而且帮助他们重建素菜曼圣殿 («史学家的世界史», II. 126)。本节经文暗示, 犹太人前两次的努力得到不同的结果。第一次针对素菜曼的阴谋以完全失去他们的威望并最后被放逐到巴比伦而告终。第二次, 他们在两位受安拉启示的人物的领导下采取类似方针而获得成功。因此, 为了指出犹太人反对穆圣的企图是否会像他们在素莱曼时代那样遭到失败, 或是像在巴比伦时代那样而获得成功, «古兰
经» 说: “(穆圣的反对者) 正在学习对他们有害而无益的东西。” 暗示他们不会像他们的祖先那样在巴比伦获得成功。
1
شَیْطَان کے معنے ہیں کُلُّ عَاتٍ مُّتَمَرِّدٍ: ہر سرکش اور حد سے بڑھنے والا (اقرب) مفردات راغب میں بھی وَاتَّبَعُوْا مَا تَتْلُوا الشَّیٰـطِیْنُ میں شیاطین سے سرکش انسان مراد لئے گئے ہیں۔ اس لئے ہم نے ترجمہ میں ’’باغی‘‘ کا لفظ استعمال کیا ہے۔
2
دو فرشتوں یعنی دو فرشتہ خصلت آدمیوں پر (تفصیل کے لئے دیکھیں تفسیر کبیر سورۃ البقرۃ جلد دوم صفحہ ۶۵)۔
3
یُفَرِّقُوۡنَ بِہٖ بَیۡنَ الۡمَرۡءِ وَ زَوۡجِہٖ یعنی وہ خاص دینی تعلیم ان کو دیتے تھے جس کی وجہ سے جو عورت ایمان لے آتی تھی‘ وہ ایمان نہ لانے والے مرد کی پروا نہیں کرتی تھی اور جو مرد ایمان لے آتا تھا وہ ایمان نہ لانے والی عورت کی پروا نہیں کرتا تھا‘ بلکہ اگر میاں بیوی میں سے بیوی ایمان لے آتی تو وہ اس تعلیم کو جو اسے سکھائی جاتی تھی مقدم رکھ کر اپنے خاوند سے اپنی جماعت کی باتیں چھپانے لگ جاتی اور اگر مرد ایمان لے آتا تو وہ اپنی بیوی سے باتیں چھپانے لگ جاتا اور دونوں ایک دوسرے کو اپنا راز دار نہیں بناتے تھے۔ صرف خدا تعالیٰ کے رسول یا اس کے نائبوں کو راز دار بنات
109
Important Words:
تتلوا (followed). See 2:114
شیاطین (rebellious men). See 2:15.
علی (during) gives the sense of فی i.e. "in" or "during" (Aqrab & Mughni). It is also used to denote a hostile sense meaning "against", as one says خرج علیه i.e. he rebelled against him, or he went out against him with an army intending to fight (Wright). In this sense the phrase علی ملك سلیمان would mean, against the government of Solomon, or conspiring against his government.
سحر (falsehood and deception). In verbal senses سحرہ means, he deceived him; he coaxed him and involved him in trouble and deprived him of his understanding; he enchanted him. سحرالفضة means, he coated a piece of silver so as to make it look like gold. The noun سحر means, anything the source of which is not quite visible; showing off falsehood in the form of truth; a crafty device; craftiness; mischief; enchantment (Aqrab). It also means, producing what is false in the form of truth; any event of which the cause is hidden and which is imagined to be different from what it really is; embellishment by falsification and deceit (Lane). Thus every falsehood, deceit or crafty device which is meant to hide the real object from public view is included in the meaning of سحر.
ملكین (two angels) is the dual number from ملك (angel) for which see 2:31. Figuratively ملك is sometimes used to denote a handsome or holy person, as the Quran says, He (Joseph) is but a gracious angel, i.e. a handsome and pious youth (12:32). As in the verse under comment, the two angels are described as teaching something to the people, therefore the word cannot be taken in its literal significance, because angels do not live among men and do not generally have free intercourse with them (17:95, 96; 21:8). Thus in the present verse ملکین would not mean "two angels" in the literal sense of the word but "two holy men".
ھاروت (Harut) and ماروت (Marut) are both descriptive names. ھاروت is derived from ھرت which means, he tore up (Aqrab); hence ھاروت means, one who tears; the tearer. ماروت is derived from مرت which means, he broke (Aqrab & Lane). Thus ماروت means, one who breaks; the breaker. These names signify that the object of the appearance of these holy men was to 'tear' asunder and 'break' the glory and power of certain people.
فتنة (trial) means, the trial or means whereby the condition of a man may be demonstrated in respect of good or evil (Lane). They say فتن الصائغ الذھب i.e. the goldsmith melted the gold in the crucible so that its purity or impurity might be ascertained (Aqrab).
Commentary:
Many a legend unwarranted by the Quran and the Hadith—and even running contrary to them—clusters round this verse. It would be quite unreasonable to interpret it on the basis of those myths. For their true interpretation no external evidence is needed, the words being self-explanatory. It is clear from the verse itself that Jews in the time of the Holy Prophet were bent upon the same mischief which characterized them in the days of Solomon and during the days of their captivity in Babylon. The verse further indicates that the mischief-mongers of Solomon’s time were those "rebellious men" who called him an unbeliever. God says that those wicked men themselves, and not Solomon, lacked belief. Again, the verse tells us that these men taught their associates such signs as conveyed to them meanings quite different from those generally accepted, for the purpose of deceiving other people and concealing their own activities. All this leads to the conclusion that this verse alludes to those secret plots which the enemies of Solomon made against him, and by which they wished to break his empire. It is pointed out that now, in the time of the Holy Prophet, these people are resorting to the selfsame tactics, but that they will fail.
As the verse refers to a number of historical events, it is advisable to relate them here at some length.
When Jews saw that the power of Islam was steadily expanding and that no opposition from the Arabs had been able to arrest the progress of Muslims, they began to excite outsiders against them. At that time there were two large empires in the neighbourhood of Arabia: (1) The Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire; and (2) The Persian Empire. As Jews were already at enmity with the Roman Government, because they were in constant trouble under it, so it was only the Persian Government to which they could look for support. Harassed by the oppression of Christian rulers, they had taken refuge in Persia, where they enjoyed a good deal of religious freedom, and their religious centre shifted from Judah and Jerusalem to Babylonia (Hutchinson’s History of the Nations, p.550). In the seventh century of the Christian era, i.e., during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, Jews suffered exceptionally cruel persecution at the hands of the Christian Emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire. "Both Phocas and Heraclius", says the Historians’ History of the World (vol. 7, p. 175), "attempted to exterminate the Jewish religion, and if possible to put an end to their national existence. Heraclius not only practised every species of cruelty himself to effect this object within the bounds of his own dominions, but he even made the forced conversion or banishment of the Jews a prominent feature in his diplomacy." So, in the time of the Holy Prophet the only government to which the Jews could look for help was that of Persia, where their co-religionists enjoyed much influence, especially in the reign of Chosroes II (Jew. Enc., ix. 648).
Consequently, when the Jews saw that their efforts to check the progress of Islam had totally failed, they took to exciting the Persian Court against the Holy Prophet by various means; and as a result, Chosroes II issued orders to the Governor of Yemen to send to him the Arabian claimant as a captive. But when the envoys of the Governor came to the Holy Prophet, he asked them to see him the next day, when he told them that God had informed him that He had their king murdered. Thereupon they returned and related this incident to the Governor. A few days later, the Governor received a letter from Siroes, the son of Chosroes II, to the effect that he had killed his father on account of the latter’s tyranny and that the Governor should, on his behalf, renew the oath of allegiance from all the Chiefs of Yemen; and that the order of his father regarding an Arab should be considered as cancelled (Tabari, iii. 1573-1574).
Some historians, including Tabari himself, hold that it was the letter of the Holy Prophet to the king of Persia inviting him to Islam that was the occasion of his orders for the apprehension of the Holy Prophet. But on comparison of the dates of the above-mentioned events, this turns out to be a mistaken view. For, as we read in Zurqani (ii. 211-212), the letter in question was despatched from Medina on the first of Muharram, 7 A.H.–a date corresponding to 12th April, 628 A.D. (Lane under ھجرة); whereas Chosroes II, who sent orders for the arrest of the Holy Prophet, had been assassinated on the 29th of February, 628 A.D. (Historians’ History of the World, viii. 95). Thus the view that the letter of the Holy Prophet was the cause of Chosroes’ orders is quite untenable; and the only possible cause of Chosroes’ ignominious orders was that his ears had been poisoned by malicious reports, a fact admitted by Sir William Muir (The Life of Mahomet, p. 370). It is to these efforts of the Jews that the Quran alludes in the verse under comment.
The verse also points out that it was foolish on the part of the Jews to suppose that they would succeed in that way. Their attention is invited to the fact that they had already been responsible for two secret plots. The first was against Solomon, when some members of their community turned rebels, hatched plots and stirred up bitter feeling against him by calling him an infidel; whereas the infidels were those who opposed him, hurled imputations at him, and set up against him secret societies in which secret signs and symbols were taught. The Jews, however, themselves reaped the ill-reward of their sinister schemes: their power, as a consequence, fell into decay, and at last they became so powerless that they were driven into exile towards Babylon. This account of Jewish secret societies and conspiracies and treacherous signs and symbols, as alluded to in this verse, finds corroboration in the Bible (1 Kings 11:1-6), where we read that the charge of idol-worship was spread against Solomon. An account of his enemies is found in I Kings 11:14, 23, 26, and a reference to secret plots is met with in II Chron. 10: 2-4 where we learn that the Jews had sent for Jeroboam, a bitter enemy of Solomon, immediately after his death and had attempted to make Solomon’s son agree to some demands of theirs, involving certain imputations against Solomon, before his accession to the throne. We learn about the secret signs from I Kings 11:29-32, in which the ten tribes of the Israelites are likened to ten pieces of a garment, and Jeroboam is told that these ten tribes were on his side against Solomon; and so it proved to be, for on the death of Solomon, these ten tribes made Jeroboam their king (I Kings 12:20). Again, the reference of the Quran to the infidelity of Solomon’s enemies finds corroboration in II Chron. 11:15, from which we learn that his enemies, who falsely charged him with unbelief, themselves fell into idol-worship when they rose to power.
Besides the testimony of the Bible, there is other evidence to show that in the days of Solomon a secret society was at work against him. An old tradition, current among medieval Freemasons, indicates that Solomon was envious of the superior intelligence of Hiram, the chief architect who built the Temple at Jerusalem. He is said to have attempted to kill the great Mason by having him thrown into a tank of molten brass, but he was saved by the spirit of his ancestor, Cain, who prophesied that at last his people would get the better of their enemy. Solomon, however, as the tradition goes, had him afterwards put to death. It is said of him that he had fixed certain secret signs which were a sort of mystery known only to him and his associates (Secret Societies of the World, Volume II, pp. 1-8; as the original book could not be obtained, the reference is to an Urdu translation). We further learn from this book that before the period of the Accepted Masons, the same signs used in all the Lodges were current among the Masons of Solomon’s time (p. 11) and that at the time of initiation, the Hiram incident was related to the new member (pp. 29, 30). However incredible the story as a whole may be, it points at least to the conclusion that in one way or other, secret societies were associated with Solomon’s reign and were much in vogue in his time.
The second occasion when, according to the Quran, the Israelites had resort to secret societies was during their captivity in Babylon. But this time they were not acting against any Prophet but were, on the other hand, working under the leadership of two inspired personages, who were, in obedience to divine command, trying to bring about the deliverance of the Israelites. Their mission was to "tear asunder" and "break down" the empire of the enemies of the Israelites. These holy men told new members, at the time of initiation, that they were a sort of trial from God, serving to differentiate between the good and the bad, and that the Israelites should not therefore refuse to believe what they said, because this would lead them to infidelity. In their teachings they drew a distinction between males and females, confining membership to males only (this is an old practice found among most secret societies). It is also stated that the disciples of these holy men directed their activities against only those for whose chastisement they were commissioned by God.
In this narration, the Quran refers to the days when King Nebuchadnezzar brought the Jews as captives into Babylon and kept them there for a long time. The holy men referred to in the verse under comment were Haggai, the Prophet, and Zechariah, the son of Iddo (Ezra 5:1). When Cyrus, King of Media and Persia, rose to power, the Israelites entered into a secret agreement with him and greatly facilitated his conquest of Babylon. In return for this service, he not only allowed them to return to their own country but also helped in the rebuilding of the Temple (Historians’ History of the World, ii. 126).
After stating that the Jews of the Holy Prophet’s time were following the same course which was adopted by the rebels of Solomon’s days and which was later adopted by the Jews under two holy men in Babylon, it was necessary here to state the ultimate upshot of their efforts against the Holy Prophet, because on the two previous occasion’s their efforts had met with different results. On the first occasion the conspiracy of the Israelites, being directed against a Prophet of God, had ended in the total loss of their prestige and finally in their banishment to Babylon. On the second occasion, they took a similar course under two inspired personages and were successful. Hence, in order to indicate whether the efforts of the Jews against the Holy Prophet would meet with failure, as they did in the days of Solomon, or with success as in Babylon, the Quran says: these people are learning that which would harm them and do them no good; hinting that they will not be successful as in Babylon. Accordingly, the consequence of their hostile efforts against the Holy Prophet was that Chosroes, their only supporter, met his death at the hands of his son, and they themselves were exiled from Arabia in the time of ‘Umar. In the concluding portion of the verse, God adds: And they have certainly known that he who trafficks therein has no share of good in the Hereafter, meaning that a mischievous plotter never succeeds ultimately. The last clause, had they but known, throws a flood of light on how intensely God desires that His creatures should always take the right course and not be misled by mischievous people.
126
Talautu-hu means, I followed him (Lane).
127
‘Ala gives the sense of fi, i.e. "in" or "during" and "against" (Mughni). The particle is also used in the Qur’an in the sense of "in conformity with" (2:113); assigning a cause (2:186); in the sense of fi (28:16) and min (83:3). Tala ‘Alaihi also means, he lied against him (Taj, Muhit & Razi).
128
Sihr means, a crafty device; mischief; enchantment; producing what is false in the form of truth; any event of which the cause is hidden and which is imagined to be different from what it really is (Lane). Thus every falsehood, deceit or crafty device which is meant to hide the real object from public view is included in Sihr.
129
The word "two angels" here signifies two holy men (12:32), because the two angels are here mentioned as teaching something to the people and angels do not live among men and do not have free intercourse with them (17:95; 21:8).
130
Harut and Marut are both descriptive names, the former being derived from Harata, (i.e. he tore up—Aqrab) means, one who tears up; and the latter derived from Marata, (i.e. he broke) means, one who breaks. These names signify that the object of the appearance of these holy men was to 'tear asunder' and 'break' the glory and power of the empire of the enemies of the Israelites. These holy men told the new members, at the time of initiation, that they were a sort of trial from God, serving to differentiate between the good and the bad. They confined the membership of their society to the males only. The verse signifies that the Jews in the time of the Holy Prophet indulged in the same mischievous devices and practices which characterized their forefathers in the days of Solomon. It further says that the mischief-mongers in Solomon’s time were those rebellious men who called him a disbeliever. The verse clears Solomon of the accusation of disbelief. It adds that the mischief-mongers in Solom
130A
When the Jews saw that the power of Islam was steadily expanding and opposition to it in Arabia had completely broken down and they could not arrest or retard its progress, they began to excite outsiders against it. Oppressed and persecuted by Christian rulers they had taken refuge in Persia and had shifted their religious centre from Judah to Babylonia (Hutchinson’s History of the Nations, p. 550). Gradually, they came to exercise great influence at the court of the Persian Monarchs and began to hatch plots against Islam. When Chosroes II received a letter from the Holy Prophet inviting him to accept Islam, they succeeded in instigating him to issue orders to Badhan, the Governor of Yemen, which was then a province of Persia, to arrest and send the Holy Prophet in chains to the Persian court. It is to these plots and machinations of the Jews in the Prophet’s time that the verse alludes. Their attention is invited to the fact that their forefathers had also hatched plots first against Solomon when some
وَیَعۡبُدُوۡنَ مِنۡ دُوۡنِ اللّٰہِ مَا لَا یَضُرُّہُمۡ وَلَا یَنۡفَعُہُمۡ وَیَقُوۡلُوۡنَ ہٰٓؤُلَآءِ شُفَعٰٓؤُنَا عِنۡدَ اللّٰہِ ۚ قُلۡ اَتُنَبِّـُٔوۡنَ اللّٰہَ بِمَا لَا یَعۡلَمُ فِی السَّمٰوٰتِ وَلَا فِی الۡاَرۡضِ ۚ سُبۡحٰنَہٗ وَتَعٰلٰی عَمَّا یُشۡرِکُوۡنَ
16:74; 22:72; 29:18.
49:17.
شِرْك (Shirk, 崇拜偶像) 的真正原因是多神教未能懂得创造他们的目的和宗旨。一个多神教徒 (مُشْرِكْ, Mushrik) 对人、对安拉的常德以及对自己的天生的、安拉给他的各种能力有着虚假的概念。他怀着一种愚蠢的信念, 认为没有一个说情人从中帮助的话, 他是接近不了安拉的; 也认为安拉不能屈尊降临他处, 除非通过那些已经接近安拉的中间媒介人物。伊斯兰教强烈反对这两种看法。
یعنی جس کا خدا کو علم نہیں وہ بات ہو ہی کس طرح سکتی ہے۔
16:74; 22:72; 29:18.
49:17.
The real cause of Shirk (idolatry) lies in failure on the part of idolaters to understand the object and purpose of their creation. A Mushrik (idolater) has a false conception of the person and attributes of God and also of his own great inborn God-given capacities and capabilities. He entertains the foolish belief that he cannot have access to God without the aid of an intermediary, and also that God cannot condescend to come to him except through the medium of those who have already attained His nearness. Islam is emphatically opposed to both these views.
16:74; 22:72; 29:18.
49:17.
Commentary:
The real cause of shirk (idolatry) lies in failure on the part of men to understand the object and purpose of their creation. A mushrik (idolater) has a false conception of the person and attributes of God and of his own great inborn capacities and capabilities. He entertains the foolish belief that he cannot have access to God without the aid of an intermediary, and also that God cannot condescend to come to him except through the medium of those who have already attained His nearness. Islam is opposed to both these views. It does not allow us to entertain any such suspicion about God, nor does it permit us to underrate our own natural powers. God has created man that he may attain His nearness and He does not tolerate that anyone should intervene between Him and His creatures. Even the Prophets of God are not intermediaries. They are only Divine Messengers and Warners, and their intercession is also based on Divine sanction. See also 2:49.
The expression, Would you inform Allah of something He knows not, contains an excellent refutation of shirk (idolatry). It purports to say that if God had appointed anyone as intercessor either in the heavens or in the earth, a declaration would have been made by Him to that effect. But no such announcement has ever been made by God. It is the people themselves who declare that such and such a person has been appointed as an intercessor, and so they, as it were, inform God of something which He does not know.
The words, Holy is He, are meant to point out that it is incompatible with the perfection of God that He should first create man for a certain purpose and then should Himself place obstacles in his way, or should reveal no guidance to warn him of those obstacles.
b
16:74; 22:72; 29:18.
c
49:17.
587
شِرْك (Shirk, 崇拜偶像) 的真正原因是多神教未能懂得创造他们的目的和宗旨。一个多神教徒 (مُشْرِكْ, Mushrik) 对人、对安拉的常德以及对自己的天生的、安拉给他的各种能力有着虚假的概念。他怀着一种愚蠢的信念, 认为没有一个说情人从中帮助的话, 他是接近不了安拉的; 也认为安拉不能屈尊降临他处, 除非通过那些已经接近安拉的中间媒介人物。伊斯兰教强烈反对这两种看法。
3
یعنی جس کا خدا کو علم نہیں وہ بات ہو ہی کس طرح سکتی ہے۔
a
16:74; 22:72; 29:18.
b
49:17.
1294
Commentary:
The real cause of shirk (idolatry) lies in failure on the part of men to understand the object and purpose of their creation. A mushrik (idolater) has a false conception of the person and attributes of God and of his own great inborn capacities and capabilities. He entertains the foolish belief that he cannot have access to God without the aid of an intermediary, and also that God cannot condescend to come to him except through the medium of those who have already attained His nearness. Islam is opposed to both these views. It does not allow us to entertain any such suspicion about God, nor does it permit us to underrate our own natural powers. God has created man that he may attain His nearness and He does not tolerate that anyone should intervene between Him and His creatures. Even the Prophets of God are not intermediaries. They are only Divine Messengers and Warners, and their intercession is also based on Divine sanction. See also 2:49.
The expression, Would you inform Allah of something He knows not, contains an excellent refutation of shirk (idolatry). It purports to say that if God had appointed anyone as intercessor either in the heavens or in the earth, a declaration would have been made by Him to that effect. But no such announcement has ever been made by God. It is the people themselves who declare that such and such a person has been appointed as an intercessor, and so they, as it were, inform God of something which He does not know.
The words, Holy is He, are meant to point out that it is incompatible with the perfection of God that He should first create man for a certain purpose and then should Himself place obstacles in his way, or should reveal no guidance to warn him of those obstacles.
a
16:74; 22:72; 29:18.
b
49:17.
1247
The real cause of Shirk (idolatry) lies in failure on the part of idolaters to understand the object and purpose of their creation. A Mushrik (idolater) has a false conception of the person and attributes of God and also of his own great inborn God-given capacities and capabilities. He entertains the foolish belief that he cannot have access to God without the aid of an intermediary, and also that God cannot condescend to come to him except through the medium of those who have already attained His nearness. Islam is emphatically opposed to both these views.
وَیَعۡبُدُوۡنَ مِنۡ دُوۡنِ اللّٰہِ مَا لَا یَنۡفَعُہُمۡ وَلَا یَضُرُّہُمۡ ۗ وَکَانَ الۡکَافِرُ عَلٰی رَبِّہٖ ظَہِیۡرًا
6:72; 10:107; 21:67; 22:13.
6:72; 10:107; 21:67; 22:13.
6:72; 10:107; 21:67; 22:13.
Commentary:
The particle علی meaning "against" the expression کان الکافر علی ربه ظھیرا would signify that the disbeliever helps and aids those who fight and combat the cause of God—the true religion.
c
6:72; 10:107; 21:67; 22:13.
a
6:72; 10:107; 21:67; 22:13.
2687
Commentary:
The particle علی meaning "against" the expression کان الکافر علی ربه ظھیرا would signify that the disbeliever helps and aids those who fight and combat the cause of God—the true religion.
c
6:72; 10:107; 21:67; 22:13.