یَقُوۡلُ
Appears 156 times in Quran
Derived Words (28)
Words derived from the stem "یَقُوۡلُ".
- And those who disbelieve say
- He does only say
- and others say
- And said
- and say
- And they say
- and they utter
- and they will say
- And yet others say
- they say
- they are sure to say
- they will most surely say
- they will surely answer
- they will surely cry out
- they will surely say
- and say
- do they say
- said
- say
- saying
- they (calumniators) allege
- They said
- they say
- They speak
- they will say
- to say
- they would certainly say
- that they may say
- do say
- that they say
- utter
- and say
- but the result is that they say
- and let them say
- they would not say
Occurrences in Quran
Found 156 verses containing "یَقُوۡلُ".
۞ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ لَا یَسۡتَحۡیٖۤ اَنۡ یَّضۡرِبَ مَثَلًا مَّا بَعُوۡضَۃً فَمَا فَوۡقَہَا ۚ فَاَمَّا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا فَیَعۡلَمُوۡنَ اَنَّہُ الۡحَقُّ مِنۡ رَّبِّہِمۡ ۖ وَاَمَّا الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا فَیَقُوۡلُوۡنَ مَاذَاۤ اَرَادَ اللّٰہُ بِہٰذَا مَثَلًا ۘ یُضِلُّ بِہٖ کَثِیۡرًا وَّیَہۡدِیۡ بِہٖ کَثِیۡرًا ۚ وَمَا یُضِلُّ بِہٖۤ اِلَّا الۡفٰسِقِیۡنَ
عربی زبان میں فَوْقٌ دونوں معنے رکھتا ہے۔ اگر بڑائی کا مقابلہ ہو تو اس کے معنے زیادہ بڑی کے ہو سکتے ہیں اگر چھوٹے ہونے کا ذکر ہو تو زیادہ چھوٹے کے معنے دے سکتا ہے۔ پس اس آیت کے دونوں ہی معنے کیے جا سکتے ہیں۔ یہ بھی کہ مچھر سے بڑی بات، یا یہ کہ اس سے بھی چھوٹی بات (مفردات راغب)
یُضِلُّ بِہٖ کَثِیْرًا کے معنے کیے گئے ہیں ’’وہ گمراہ قرار دیتا ہے‘‘ یہ عربی لغت کے مطابق ہے۔ چنانچہ مفردات میں اَ لْاِضْلَالُ کے معنی کرتے ہوئے لکھا ہے اَنْ تَحْکُمَ بِضَـلَا لَۃٍ کہ تو اس کے گمراہ ہونے کا فیصلہ کر دے۔ پس یُضِلُّ بِہٖ کَثِیْرًا کے معنی ہوں گے یَحْکُمُ اللّٰہُ بِالضَّـلَالِ عَلَیْھِمْ یعنی اللہ ان کے گمراہ ہونے کا فیصلہ کرتا ہے۔
فَسَقَ کے معنے ہوتے ہیں تَرَکَ اَمْرَ اللّٰہِ یعنی اللہ تعالیٰ کے حکم کو ردّ کر دیا (اقرب) پس فاسق کے معنے ہوں گے نافرمان۔ اللہ کے حکم کو ردّ کرنے والا۔
33:54.
14:25; 16:76, 112; 47:4; 66:12.
6:118; 7:187; 13:28; 16:94; 40:35.
Darabal-Mathala means, he gave an illustration or a description; he made a statement; he propounded a parable (Lane, Taj & 14:46).
God has described Heaven and Hell in the Qur’an in metaphors and similes. Metaphors and similes express depths of meaning which cannot adequately be expressed otherwise, and in things of the spirit they provide perhaps the only method by which ideas can be properly conveyed. The words used for describing Heaven may be as inadequate and insignificant as a gnat; which is considered by the Arabs and, in fact is, a very, very weak creature. The Arabs say: Ad‘afu min Ba‘udatin, i.e. he is weaker than a gnat. Nevertheless they help to conjure up the picture. The believers know the words are only metaphorical and try to get to the depth of their meaning; but the disbelievers begin to find fault with them and increase in error and misguidance.
Fauq means, above and signifies both 'greater' and 'smaller' and is used in the sense which befits the context (Mufradat).
Adallallahu means, (1) God adjudged him to be in error; (2) God forsook or abandoned him so that he went astray (Kashshaf); (3) God found or left him in error or let him go astray (Lane).
33:54.
14:25; 16:76, 113; 47:4; 66:12.
6:118; 7:187; 13:28; 16:94; 40:35.
Important Words:
یستحیٖ (disdains) is derived from حیی which means: (1) he lived or had life; (2) he felt or had a sense of shame or shyness or bashfulness. The infinitive حیاء means, sense of shame or modesty or shyness or bashfulness; or keeping back from a thing through fear of blame. استحیا means, he felt a sense of shame or shyness; he kept back, or he forbore, or he shrank from. استحیی من کذا means, he disdained it, or he refused to do it by reason of pride, or he kept far from it (Lane).
یضل (He adjudges to be erring) is from اضل which is derived from ضل which means, he went astray; he lost his way; he erred; he was lost; he perished. اضل is the transitive form of ضل. They say اضله i.e. he led him astray; he caused him to err; he lost him or it; he caused him to perish. اضله also means, he found him to be erring or straying or lost, etc. (Lane). اضله اللهmay also mean, (1) God adjudged him to be erring or He adjudged him to have gone astray; (2) God forsook or abandoned him and he went astray (Kashshaf). See also 1:7.
الفاسقین (the disobedient) is the plural of فاسق which is derived from the verb فسق which means, he left the right course, or he declined from the right path. فسق عن امرربه means, he departed from the command of his Lord; he disobeyed his Lord. فاسقis thus one who departs from the right course or from the way of truth, or from the limits of the law, or from the bounds of obedience. The word is generally applied to one who first takes upon himself to obey an authority or to observe the ordinances of a law and then falls short of it (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
If, as described in the previous verse, there is not much in common between the gifts of this world and those of the next, why has the Quran given a description of Heaven at all? This question is answered in the present verse. Even if the picture of Heaven and Hell given in the Quran is not exact, it cannot be denied that the imagery used enlightens and helps us to form an idea of the next life. God has, no doubt, described Heaven and Hell by using metaphors and similes, but no one can say that they are useless. Metaphors and similes are used in all languages, and they express depths of meaning which cannot be reached otherwise, and in things of the spirit they afford perhaps the only method by which ideas can be conveyed. The words used for describing Heaven may be as inadequate and insignificant as a gnat; nevertheless they help to conjure up the picture. The believers know the words are only metaphorical and try to get to the depth of their meaning; but the disbelievers begin to find fault with them and increase in error and misguidance.
The words یضل به کثیرا (lit. many does He misguide) have been translated in the text as, many does He adjudge by it to be erring. This, as shown under Important Words above, is a perfectly correct rendering, for though misguidance springs from one’s own self, as the verse itself makes clear in the concluding clause, yet it is God, the final Judge, Who declares or adjudges the misguided to be so.
a
33:54.
b
14:25; 16:76, 112; 47:4; 66:12.
c
6:118; 7:187; 13:28; 16:94; 40:35.
1
عربی زبان میں فَوْقٌ دونوں معنے رکھتا ہے۔ اگر بڑائی کا مقابلہ ہو تو اس کے معنے زیادہ بڑی کے ہو سکتے ہیں اگر چھوٹے ہونے کا ذکر ہو تو زیادہ چھوٹے کے معنے دے سکتا ہے۔ پس اس آیت کے دونوں ہی معنے کیے جا سکتے ہیں۔ یہ بھی کہ مچھر سے بڑی بات، یا یہ کہ اس سے بھی چھوٹی بات (مفردات راغب)
2
یُضِلُّ بِہٖ کَثِیْرًا کے معنے کیے گئے ہیں ’’وہ گمراہ قرار دیتا ہے‘‘ یہ عربی لغت کے مطابق ہے۔ چنانچہ مفردات میں اَ لْاِضْلَالُ کے معنی کرتے ہوئے لکھا ہے اَنْ تَحْکُمَ بِضَـلَا لَۃٍ کہ تو اس کے گمراہ ہونے کا فیصلہ کر دے۔ پس یُضِلُّ بِہٖ کَثِیْرًا کے معنی ہوں گے یَحْکُمُ اللّٰہُ بِالضَّـلَالِ عَلَیْھِمْ یعنی اللہ ان کے گمراہ ہونے کا فیصلہ کرتا ہے۔
3
فَسَقَ کے معنے ہوتے ہیں تَرَکَ اَمْرَ اللّٰہِ یعنی اللہ تعالیٰ کے حکم کو ردّ کر دیا (اقرب) پس فاسق کے معنے ہوں گے نافرمان۔ اللہ کے حکم کو ردّ کرنے والا۔
a
33:54.
b
14:25; 16:76, 113; 47:4; 66:12.
c
6:118; 7:187; 13:28; 16:94; 40:35.
33
Important Words:
یستحیٖ (disdains) is derived from حیی which means: (1) he lived or had life; (2) he felt or had a sense of shame or shyness or bashfulness. The infinitive حیاء means, sense of shame or modesty or shyness or bashfulness; or keeping back from a thing through fear of blame. استحیا means, he felt a sense of shame or shyness; he kept back, or he forbore, or he shrank from. استحیی من کذا means, he disdained it, or he refused to do it by reason of pride, or he kept far from it (Lane).
یضل (He adjudges to be erring) is from اضل which is derived from ضل which means, he went astray; he lost his way; he erred; he was lost; he perished. اضل is the transitive form of ضل. They say اضله i.e. he led him astray; he caused him to err; he lost him or it; he caused him to perish. اضله also means, he found him to be erring or straying or lost, etc. (Lane). اضله اللهmay also mean, (1) God adjudged him to be erring or He adjudged him to have gone astray; (2) God forsook or abandoned him and he went astray (Kashshaf). See also 1:7.
الفاسقین (the disobedient) is the plural of فاسق which is derived from the verb فسق which means, he left the right course, or he declined from the right path. فسق عن امرربه means, he departed from the command of his Lord; he disobeyed his Lord. فاسقis thus one who departs from the right course or from the way of truth, or from the limits of the law, or from the bounds of obedience. The word is generally applied to one who first takes upon himself to obey an authority or to observe the ordinances of a law and then falls short of it (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
If, as described in the previous verse, there is not much in common between the gifts of this world and those of the next, why has the Quran given a description of Heaven at all? This question is answered in the present verse. Even if the picture of Heaven and Hell given in the Quran is not exact, it cannot be denied that the imagery used enlightens and helps us to form an idea of the next life. God has, no doubt, described Heaven and Hell by using metaphors and similes, but no one can say that they are useless. Metaphors and similes are used in all languages, and they express depths of meaning which cannot be reached otherwise, and in things of the spirit they afford perhaps the only method by which ideas can be conveyed. The words used for describing Heaven may be as inadequate and insignificant as a gnat; nevertheless they help to conjure up the picture. The believers know the words are only metaphorical and try to get to the depth of their meaning; but the disbelievers begin to find fault with them and increase in error and misguidance.
The words یضل به کثیرا (lit. many does He misguide) have been translated in the text as, many does He adjudge by it to be erring. This, as shown under Important Words above, is a perfectly correct rendering, for though misguidance springs from one’s own self, as the verse itself makes clear in the concluding clause, yet it is God, the final Judge, Who declares or adjudges the misguided to be so.
a
33:54.
b
14:25; 16:76, 112; 47:4; 66:12.
c
6:118; 7:187; 13:28; 16:94; 40:35.
48
Darabal-Mathala means, he gave an illustration or a description; he made a statement; he propounded a parable (Lane, Taj & 14:46).
48A
God has described Heaven and Hell in the Qur’an in metaphors and similes. Metaphors and similes express depths of meaning which cannot adequately be expressed otherwise, and in things of the spirit they provide perhaps the only method by which ideas can be properly conveyed. The words used for describing Heaven may be as inadequate and insignificant as a gnat; which is considered by the Arabs and, in fact is, a very, very weak creature. The Arabs say: Ad‘afu min Ba‘udatin, i.e. he is weaker than a gnat. Nevertheless they help to conjure up the picture. The believers know the words are only metaphorical and try to get to the depth of their meaning; but the disbelievers begin to find fault with them and increase in error and misguidance.
48B
Fauq means, above and signifies both 'greater' and 'smaller' and is used in the sense which befits the context (Mufradat).
49
Adallallahu means, (1) God adjudged him to be in error; (2) God forsook or abandoned him so that he went astray (Kashshaf); (3) God found or left him in error or let him go astray (Lane).
قَالُوا ادۡعُ لَنَا رَبَّکَ یُبَیِّنۡ لَّنَا مَا ہِیَ ۚ قَالَ اِنَّہٗ یَقُوۡلُ اِنَّہَا بَقَرَۃٌ لَّا فَارِضٌ وَّلَا بِکۡرٌ عَوَانٌۢ بَیۡنَ ذٰلِکَ ۖ فَافۡعَلُوۡا مَا تُؤۡمَرُوۡنَ
یعنی بیان شدہ حد بندی۔
Important Words:
فارض (old) is derived from فرض. They say فرضت البقرة meaning, the cow became old (Lane).
اعوان (full-grown) is derived from عان. They say عانت المراة i.e. the woman attained middle age. So عوان is said of one that has attained middle age. الحرب العوان means, the hottest and bloodiest part of a battle (Aqrab).
Commentary:
See under 2:72.
1
یعنی بیان شدہ حد بندی۔
75
Important Words:
فارض (old) is derived from فرض. They say فرضت البقرة meaning, the cow became old (Lane).
اعوان (full-grown) is derived from عان. They say عانت المراة i.e. the woman attained middle age. So عوان is said of one that has attained middle age. الحرب العوان means, the hottest and bloodiest part of a battle (Aqrab).
Commentary:
See under 2:72.
قَالُوا ادۡعُ لَنَا رَبَّکَ یُبَیِّنۡ لَّنَا مَا لَوۡنُہَا ۚ قَالَ اِنَّہٗ یَقُوۡلُ اِنَّہَا بَقَرَۃٌ صَفۡرَآءُ فَاقِعٌ لَّوۡنُہَا تَسُرُّ النّٰظِرِیۡنَ
Important Words:
صفراء (of a dun colour) is the feminine from أصفر which signifies a thing having the colour of gold; yellow-coloured or saffron-coloured (Aqrab).
فاقع (pure and rich) is derived from فقع which means: (1) it was of a rich, pure and unmixed colour; or (2) its golden colour was rich and pure. فاقع means: (1) possessing pure and rich colour; (2) possessing rich and pure golden colour. Thus it is both general and particular (Aqrab).
Commentary:
See under 2:72.
76
Important Words:
صفراء (of a dun colour) is the feminine from أصفر which signifies a thing having the colour of gold; yellow-coloured or saffron-coloured (Aqrab).
فاقع (pure and rich) is derived from فقع which means: (1) it was of a rich, pure and unmixed colour; or (2) its golden colour was rich and pure. فاقع means: (1) possessing pure and rich colour; (2) possessing rich and pure golden colour. Thus it is both general and particular (Aqrab).
Commentary:
See under 2:72.
قَالَ اِنَّہٗ یَقُوۡلُ اِنَّہَا بَقَرَۃٌ لَّا ذَلُوۡلٌ تُثِیۡرُ الۡاَرۡضَ وَلَا تَسۡقِی الۡحَرۡثَ مُسَلَّمَۃٌ لَّا شِیَۃَ فِیۡہَا ۚ قَالُوا الۡـٰٔنَ جِئۡتَ بِالۡحَقِّ ۚ فَذَبَحُوۡہَا وَمَا کَادُوۡا یَفۡعَلُوۡنَ
67:16.
67:16.
The Israelites had lived for a long time among the Egyptians who had great veneration for the cow. Thus reverence for this animal had crept into their minds also. This is why, when they made an idol for themselves, they made it in the shape of a calf (Qur’an 2:52 & Exod. 32: 4). In order that their minds should have been purged of the feeling of veneration for the cow, they were repeatedly commanded to sacrifice it (Num. 19: 1-9; Lev. 4: 1-21; 16: 3, 11). It seems that they had a particular cow, which served as a pet among them, and they had a misgiving that the order pertained to it. So they repeatedly asked Moses to specify the cow which God meant to be slaughtered, and as a result of their questioning some conditions were added to specify the animal.
67:16.
Commentary:
The Israelites had lived for a long time among the Egyptians who had great veneration for the cow. Thus reverence for the cow had crept into the minds of the Israelites as well. This is why, when they made an idol for themselves, they made it in the shape of a calf (Quran 2:52 & Exod. 32:4). It was, therefore, quite in the fitness of things that, in order to root out this evil inclination from the hearts of the Israelites, they should have been repeatedly commanded to sacrifice the cow. And this was actually the case (Num. 19:1-9; Lev. 4:1-21; 16:3, 11; etc.) A nation which freely slaughters an animal can never think of deifying it.
In the verses under comment, i.e. vv. 68 to 72, mention is made of Moses having ordered the Israelites to sacrifice a cow. It appears that at first they were bidden to sacrifice an ordinary cow, but it seems they had a particular cow which served as a pet among them and they had a natural misgiving that the order pertained to that cow. So they repeatedly asked Moses to specify the cow which God meant to be slaughtered, and as a result of their questionings some conditions were added to specify the animal. Finally, when the description given by Moses corresponded to the particular cow which they had in view, they had perforce to say, Now hast thou brought the truth, the words showing that from the very beginning they had in their mind some particular cow to which they thought the command pertained. Caught in their own net, they were guided aright and had to slaughter the very cow which served as a pet among them and thus a great step was taken to uproot the evil from their hearts.
This incident finds mention in the Bible also (Num. 19:1-9). The Quranic version, however, differs slightly from that of the Bible. According to the Quran, the Israelites were at first ordered to slaughter an ordinary cow, and it was only on their repeated questioning that descriptions were added to specify it. On the other hand, the Biblical version makes no mention of this questioning, but tells us that at the very outset the Israelites were ordered to slaughter a cow answering a particular description. Again, the narrative of the Quran, shows that it was with great reluctance that the Israelites finally complied with the command, but the Bible throws no light on the manner in which the divine behest was carried out. It is not difficult to see on which side the truth lies. It is too much to believe that the Israelites, who were ever ready to quarrel with Moses on receipt of an injunction against their wishes, should have carried out, without question, the order relating to the slaughter of a cow.
b
67:16.
a
67:16.
78
Commentary:
The Israelites had lived for a long time among the Egyptians who had great veneration for the cow. Thus reverence for the cow had crept into the minds of the Israelites as well. This is why, when they made an idol for themselves, they made it in the shape of a calf (Quran 2:52 & Exod. 32:4). It was, therefore, quite in the fitness of things that, in order to root out this evil inclination from the hearts of the Israelites, they should have been repeatedly commanded to sacrifice the cow. And this was actually the case (Num. 19:1-9; Lev. 4:1-21; 16:3, 11; etc.) A nation which freely slaughters an animal can never think of deifying it.
In the verses under comment, i.e. vv. 68 to 72, mention is made of Moses having ordered the Israelites to sacrifice a cow. It appears that at first they were bidden to sacrifice an ordinary cow, but it seems they had a particular cow which served as a pet among them and they had a natural misgiving that the order pertained to that cow. So they repeatedly asked Moses to specify the cow which God meant to be slaughtered, and as a result of their questionings some conditions were added to specify the animal. Finally, when the description given by Moses corresponded to the particular cow which they had in view, they had perforce to say, Now hast thou brought the truth, the words showing that from the very beginning they had in their mind some particular cow to which they thought the command pertained. Caught in their own net, they were guided aright and had to slaughter the very cow which served as a pet among them and thus a great step was taken to uproot the evil from their hearts.
This incident finds mention in the Bible also (Num. 19:1-9). The Quranic version, however, differs slightly from that of the Bible. According to the Quran, the Israelites were at first ordered to slaughter an ordinary cow, and it was only on their repeated questioning that descriptions were added to specify it. On the other hand, the Biblical version makes no mention of this questioning, but tells us that at the very outset the Israelites were ordered to slaughter a cow answering a particular description. Again, the narrative of the Quran, shows that it was with great reluctance that the Israelites finally complied with the command, but the Bible throws no light on the manner in which the divine behest was carried out. It is not difficult to see on which side the truth lies. It is too much to believe that the Israelites, who were ever ready to quarrel with Moses on receipt of an injunction against their wishes, should have carried out, without question, the order relating to the slaughter of a cow.
a
67:16.
108
The Israelites had lived for a long time among the Egyptians who had great veneration for the cow. Thus reverence for this animal had crept into their minds also. This is why, when they made an idol for themselves, they made it in the shape of a calf (Qur’an 2:52 & Exod. 32: 4). In order that their minds should have been purged of the feeling of veneration for the cow, they were repeatedly commanded to sacrifice it (Num. 19: 1-9; Lev. 4: 1-21; 16: 3, 11). It seems that they had a particular cow, which served as a pet among them, and they had a misgiving that the order pertained to it. So they repeatedly asked Moses to specify the cow which God meant to be slaughtered, and as a result of their questioning some conditions were added to specify the animal.
فَوَیۡلٌ لِّلَّذِیۡنَ یَکۡتُبُوۡنَ الۡکِتٰبَ بِاَیۡدِیۡہِمۡ ثُمَّ یَقُوۡلُوۡنَ ہٰذَا مِنۡ عِنۡدِ اللّٰہِ لِیَشۡتَرُوۡا بِہٖ ثَمَنًا قَلِیۡلًا ۖ فَوَیۡلٌ لَّہُمۡ مِّمَّا کَتَبَتۡ اَیۡدِیۡہِمۡ وَوَیۡلٌ لَّہُمۡ مِّمَّا یَکۡسِبُوۡنَ
2:175; 3:200.
2:175; 3:200.
There were Jews who composed books or parts thereof and then gave them out as the Word of God. This malpractice was common among the Jews. In addition, therefore, to the canonical Books of the Bible, there are a number of books which are supposed by the Jews to have been revealed, so that it has now become impossible to distinguish the revealed Books from those not revealed.
2:175; 3:200; 13:27.
Important Words:
ویل (woe) means: (1) the coming or befalling of some calamity, misfortune or sorrow; (2) punishment; (3) perdition. The expression ویل له or ویله or ویل لك or ویلك etc. is used as a warning for some coming sorrow or misfortune (Aqrab & Lane).
Commentary:
There were Jews who composed books or parts thereof and then gave them out as the word of God. This malpractice was common among the Jews and other peoples. Therefore, in addition to the canonical Books of the Bible, there are a number of books which are supposed to be revealed, so that it has now become impossible to distinguish the revealed Books from those not revealed. Another mal-practice of the Jews was that they distorted the meaning of the Divine Word. They themselves wrote a whole book or part thereof and declared it to be based on Biblical evidence; while, as a matter of fact, it was opposed to this evidence. Those responsible for this were responsible not only for their own misdeeds, namely, fabricating and distorting the Word of God, but also for the misdeeds of their followers who were led by their example to commit one or all of the following acts (1) tampering with the Word of God (2:76); (2) preferring worldliness to religion (2:77); and (3) following their own vain desires and false notions (2:79). Hence, while speaking of them, the Quran uses the word ویل (woe) in order to warn them and remind them of the seriousness of their offence.
Some Christian writers have argued that the verse under comment proves that the Jewish and Christian scriptures were intact at the time of the Holy Prophet. This inference is absolutely unjustified. For tampering with the text does not necessarily mean tampering with a genuine text. One who tampers with a version of a false book which he believes to be true is as liable to blame as the one who tampers with a genuine scripture. Hence, the warning to the People of the Book against tampering with the Bible cannot be cited as proof of the existence of the true Bible at the time of the Holy Prophet.
The words, paltry price, do not mean that the taking of a good price would be lawful. The words have been used to point out that whatever price they may take would be paltry in view of the great loss they would be suffering thereby. Elsewhere, the Quran says: the benefit of this world is little (4:78).
In the last clause the Quran repeats the words, Woe to them, twice, saying: Woe, then, to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. This is to point out that by so doing the Israelites are committing two offences: (1) writing down a thing falsely and (2) doing it with the intention of earning some worldly benefit. As the offence is double, the punishment also will be double.
d
2:175; 3:200.
a
2:175; 3:200; 13:27.
86
Important Words:
ویل (woe) means: (1) the coming or befalling of some calamity, misfortune or sorrow; (2) punishment; (3) perdition. The expression ویل له or ویله or ویل لك or ویلك etc. is used as a warning for some coming sorrow or misfortune (Aqrab & Lane).
Commentary:
There were Jews who composed books or parts thereof and then gave them out as the word of God. This malpractice was common among the Jews and other peoples. Therefore, in addition to the canonical Books of the Bible, there are a number of books which are supposed to be revealed, so that it has now become impossible to distinguish the revealed Books from those not revealed. Another mal-practice of the Jews was that they distorted the meaning of the Divine Word. They themselves wrote a whole book or part thereof and declared it to be based on Biblical evidence; while, as a matter of fact, it was opposed to this evidence. Those responsible for this were responsible not only for their own misdeeds, namely, fabricating and distorting the Word of God, but also for the misdeeds of their followers who were led by their example to commit one or all of the following acts (1) tampering with the Word of God (2:76); (2) preferring worldliness to religion (2:77); and (3) following their own vain desires and false notions (2:79). Hence, while speaking of them, the Quran uses the word ویل (woe) in order to warn them and remind them of the seriousness of their offence.
Some Christian writers have argued that the verse under comment proves that the Jewish and Christian scriptures were intact at the time of the Holy Prophet. This inference is absolutely unjustified. For tampering with the text does not necessarily mean tampering with a genuine text. One who tampers with a version of a false book which he believes to be true is as liable to blame as the one who tampers with a genuine scripture. Hence, the warning to the People of the Book against tampering with the Bible cannot be cited as proof of the existence of the true Bible at the time of the Holy Prophet.
The words, paltry price, do not mean that the taking of a good price would be lawful. The words have been used to point out that whatever price they may take would be paltry in view of the great loss they would be suffering thereby. Elsewhere, the Quran says: the benefit of this world is little (4:78).
In the last clause the Quran repeats the words, Woe to them, twice, saying: Woe, then, to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. This is to point out that by so doing the Israelites are committing two offences: (1) writing down a thing falsely and (2) doing it with the intention of earning some worldly benefit. As the offence is double, the punishment also will be double.
a
2:175; 3:200.
114
There were Jews who composed books or parts thereof and then gave them out as the Word of God. This malpractice was common among the Jews. In addition, therefore, to the canonical Books of the Bible, there are a number of books which are supposed by the Jews to have been revealed, so that it has now become impossible to distinguish the revealed Books from those not revealed.
ہُوَ الَّذِیۡۤ اَنۡزَلَ عَلَیۡکَ الۡکِتٰبَ مِنۡہُ اٰیٰتٌ مُّحۡکَمٰتٌ ہُنَّ اُمُّ الۡکِتٰبِ وَاُخَرُ مُتَشٰبِہٰتٌ ۖ فَاَمَّا الَّذِیۡنَ فِیۡ قُلُوۡبِہِمۡ زَیۡغٌ فَیَتَّبِعُوۡنَ مَا تَشٰبَہَ مِنۡہُ ابۡتِغَآءَ الۡفِتۡنَۃِ وَابۡتِغَآءَ تَاۡوِیۡلِہٖ ۗ وَمَا یَعۡلَمُ تَاۡوِیۡلَہٗۤ اِلَّا اللّٰہُ ۗ وَالرّٰسِخُوۡنَ فِی الۡعِلۡمِ یَقُوۡلُوۡنَ اٰمَنَّا بِہٖ کُلٌّ مِّنۡ عِنۡدِ رَبِّنَا ۗ وَمَا یَذَّکَّرُ اِلَّاۤ اُولُوا الۡاَلۡبٰبِ
11:2.
39:24.
7:54; 18:79.
4:163.
مُحْكَمْ (Muhkam) 的意思是: (1) 意义不会受到窜改或删减者; (2) 意义不含糊或不存在怀疑可能性者; (3) 意义清楚而解释明确者; (4) 包含«古兰经»特有教义的节文(مُفْرَدَات, Mufradat和Lane)。
اُمّ (Umm) 意指: (1) 母亲; (2) 事物的起源或基础; (3) 任何作为扶助、支持改革或修正另一事物手段的东西; (4) 与周围其它事物相联系的任何东西 (اَقْرَبْ, Aqrab和مُفْرَدَات, Mufradat)。
مُتَشَابِه (Mutashabih) 用於 (1)虽是一致, 但可以有不同解释的词语、句子或经节; (2) 彼此相似或一致的部分; (3) 经文的真正意义和没有表示出来的意义相类似的部分; (4) 经文的正确意思只有参照称为 مُحْكَمْ (Muhkam) 的经文才可知道; (5) 不经过反复考虑就不能正确理解的经文; (6) 经文含有的教义和先前启示的经文含有的教义相符或相似的部分 (مُفْرَدَات, Mufradat)。
تَأ وِيْل (Ta’wil) 意思是: (1) 解释或说明; (2) 讲话或文章的意义的推测; (3) 转变讲话或文章的正确解释; (4) 对梦的解释; (5) 事物的结束、结果或后果 (Lane)。在此节经文中该词出现两次。第一次的意思是 (2) 和 (3), 而第二次的意思是 (1) 或 (5)。
此节经文说明这样一个重要规则, 即为了证实一个有争论的观点, 应该考虑那明确而清楚的经文措辞。如果发现这些经文与某一意义不明确的章节的句子结构有抵触, 就应该把该章节解释得与措辞明确、清楚的经文相一致。根据此节经文来看, «古兰经» 有两种经文。一种是 مُحْكَمْ (Muhkam) 意义肯定而明确的, 另一种是 مُتَشَابِه (Mutashabih) 意义可作不同的解释的。正确解释 Mutashabih 经文的方法是, 只有把其经文解释得与 (Muhkam) 经文相一致。在39:24中, 整个 «古兰经» 被称作Mutashabih而在11:2中所有 «古兰经» 节文被说成是 Muhkam。这不应该被看作与在注释的这节经文相矛盾。根据在注解的这节经文, 有些 «古兰经» 节文是 Muhkam, 有些节文是 Mutashabih。就 «古兰经» 节文的真正意义而论, 整个 «古兰经» 是 Muhkam, 因为所有的节文包含明确而永恒的真理。然而, 从另一意义来说, 全本 «古兰经» 节文是Mutashabih, 因为 «古兰经» 每一节都同时表示几个同样正确和适当的意思, 就另一意义说, «古兰经» 也是Mutashabih 相互类似, 其中没有前后矛盾或相互不一致的地方, 不同的节文可以相互印证。(如同此节经文所指出的那样) 有些经文当然属於 (Muhkam), 有些属于Mutashabih, 这要看不同读者的知识、思想品质和天赋能力而定, 如本节所指示者。至于预言, 用明白、直接、只容许有一种意义的语言所表述的可以看作是 (Muhkam); 而用隐喻、能有不止一种解释的语言叙述的, 则可被看作 Mutashabih。因此, 应该按照确已实现了无疑的预言和伊斯兰教的基本原则来解释用隐喻的言语所叙述的预言。有关(Muhkam) 预言, 读者可参阅58:22; 而28:86则包含Mutashabih预言。(Muhkam) 这个词也适用那种包括充分而全面经律的经文; 而 Mutashabih经文只包容某一经律的一部分, 并且须与其它经文联系起来阅读, 才能形成一条完整的经律。مُحْكَمَات (Muhkamat) (明确的经文)通常论述伊斯兰教信仰的律令和教义; 而且 مُتَشَابِهَات (Mutashabihat) 论述次要的论题或叙述众先知的生平轶事或各民族史, 在论述中有时就用一些可能会产生不同意思的成语和短语。这样的经文的解释不应与措辞清楚的伊斯兰教信仰的教义相矛盾。这里可以注意到: 为了用最少的词来表达众多的意思, 为了使经文风格优雅, 为了使人们受到磨炼--------如果没有这种磨炼, 人们的心灵就不可能深化和完美--------就需要使用隐喻, 而隐喻是经典中Mutashabih经文的主要基础。
مُحْکَمٰتٌ محکمات سے مراد وہ آیات ہیں جن میں قرآن کریم کی خاص تعلیم بیان ہوئی ہے۔
مُتَشٰبِھٰتٌ سے مراد وہ آیات ہیں جن میں ایسی تعلیم ہے جو پہلی کتابوں میں بھی مذکور ہے۔
یعنی جو آیات پہلی کتب کی تعلیم سے ملتی ہیں وہ ان کو بگاڑ کر پہلی قوموں کی روایات کے تابع کر دیتے ہیں اور اس طرح قرآن کریم کی خوبی کو چھپا دیتے ہیں۔
7:54; 18:79.
4:163.
11:2.
39:24.
Muhkam means, (1) that which has been made secure from change or alteration; (2) that in which there is no ambiguity or possibility of doubt; (3) that which is clear in meaning and decisive in exposition and (4) a verse which embodies a teaching special to the Qur’an (Mufradat & Lane).
Umm means, (1) mother; (2) source or origin or basis of a thing; (3) anything which is a means of sustenance and support or of reformation and correction for another; (4) anything to which other things around it are linked (Aqrab & Mufradat).
Mutashabih is used about (1) that phrase, sentence or verse which is susceptible of different, though concordant, interpretations; (2) that whose parts resemble or are concordant with one another; (3) that whose true significance bears a similarity to a sense which is not meant; (4) that of which the true meaning is known only by referring it to what is termed Muhkam; (5) that which cannot be rightly understood without repeated consideration; (6) a verse which contains teaching corresponding to or resembling those contained in the previous revealed Scriptures (Mufradat).
Ta’wil means, (1) interpretation or explanation; (2) conjecture about the meaning of a speech or writing; (3) turning away a speech or writing from its right interpretation; (4) interpretation of a dream; (5) end, result or sequel of a thing (Lane). In this verse the word occurs twice; in the former place it gives the second or the third meaning, while in the latter it gives the first or the fifth meaning.
The verse lays down the golden rule that, in order to prove a controversial point, the decisive and clearly worded parts of a Scripture should be taken into consideration, and if these are found to contradict the construction put upon a certain ambiguous passage that passage should be so interpreted as to make it harmonize with the decisive and clearly worded parts of the text. According to the verse, the Qur’an has two sets of verses. Some are Muhkam (firm and decisive in meaning) and others Mutashabih (capable of different interpretations). The right way to interpret a Mutashabih verse is that only such interpretation of it should be accepted as agrees with the verses that are Muhkam. In 39:24 the whole of the Qur’an is called Mutashabih and in 11:2 all the Quranic verses have been described as Muhkam. This should not be taken as contradicting the verse under comment, according to which some verses of the Qur’an are Muhkam and others Mutashabih
11:2.
39:24.
7:54; 18:79.
4:163.
Important Words:
محکمات (decisive in meaning) is derived from احکم which again is derived from حکم which means, he decided or he judged; he prevented or restrained or withheld. احکمه means, he rendered it firm, stable and secure; he restrained it. Hence محکم means: (1) that which has been made secure from change or alteration; (2) that in which there is no ambiguity or possibility of doubt; (3) that which is clear in meaning and decisive in exposition (Aqrab, Mufradat & Lane).
ام (basis) is the noun-infinitive from ام (amma), i.e. he aimed at or sought or took himself to. ام possesses a variety of meanings some of which are: (1) mother; (2) source or origin or basis of a thing; (3) anything which is a means of sustenance and support or of reformation and correction for another; (4) anything to which other things surrounding it are linked (Aqrab & Mufradat).
متشابھات (susceptible of different interpretations) is the plural of متشابھة which is derived from شبه. They say شبھه به i.e. he made it to be like that; he likened it to that. شبه علیه الامر means, he rendered the affair confused or obscure or ambiguous to him. تشابه الرجلان means, the two men were so like each other that it was difficult to distinguish one from the other. متشابهmeans, mutually resembling. Thus the expressions متشابھه is used about (1) that phrase, sentence or verse which is susceptible of different, though concordant, interpretations; or (2) that whose parts resemble or are concordant with one another; or (3) that whose true significance bears a similarity to a sense which is not meant; or (4) that of which the true meaning is known only by referring it to what is termed محکم (decisive); or (5) that which cannot be rightly understood without repeated consideration (Aqrab, Lane & Mufradat).
زیغ (perversity) is the noun-infinitive from زاغ which means, he declined or deviated, or turned aside from the right course. So زیغ means, deviation from the truth or the right course; crookedness; doubt. ازاغه means, he made him deviate from the right course (Aqrab & Mufradat).
تاویله (its interpretation). تاویل is the noun-infinitive from اول which is derived from آل i.e. he or it turned or returned. اولهmeans, he caused it or him to turn or return. اول الکلام means, he interpreted or explained the speech or writing. اول الرؤیاmeans, he interpreted the dream. تاویل means, (1) interpretation or explanation; (2) conjecture about the meaning of a speech or writing; (3) turning away a speech or writing from its right interpretation; (4) interpretation of a dream; (5) end, result or sequel of a thing (Lane & Aqrab). In the present verse the word تاویل occurs twice, the first-mentioned تاویلgiving the second or the third meaning, while the second-mentioned gives the first or the fifth meaning.
الراسخون (firmly grounded) is the plural of الراسخ which is derived from رسخ i.e. he or it was or became firm, stable or established. رسخ الشیءmeans, the thing became firmly established. رسخ العلم فی قلبه means, knowledge became firmly established, or sank deep, in his heart. الراسخ فی العلم is one whose knowledge is extensive and deep-rooted, being firmly established and based on sure ground (Aqrab & Mufradat).
Commentary:
The verse, which was revealed when a party of Christians from Najran visited the Holy Prophet in Medina (Jarir), serves a fourfold purpose: (1) it gives the genesis of the later Christian doctrines and explains how the true original doctrines became perverted; (2) it tells how the critics of Islam, particularly the Christians, distort true Islamic teachings in order to find an excuse for attacking Islam; (3) it warns Muslims to take a lesson from the history of Christians; and (4) it supplies a sure and trustworthy principle of interpreting revealed Books, or, for that matter, any writing or speech, in a right manner.
What proved the perversion of the Christian faith was that expressions like "Son of God" etc. used metaphorically were taken literally and the simple and straightforward faith of Jesus was transformed out of all recognition, the متشابهbeing given the place of محکم.
Again, it is on record that when the party of Christians, referred to above, visited the Holy Prophet and had a discussion with him on the godhead of Jesus, they, like clever casuists, who when it suits their purpose tear a passage from its context and then base their arguments on it, asked the Holy Prophet if the words کلمة الله (word of God) and روح(spirit) were used about Jesus in the Quran, and, receiving an answer in the affirmative, joyfully exclaimed that the divinity of Jesus was thereby proved. They did not care to ponder over the explanation of these words in their context, which did not at all bear out the sense which they thought they possessed. It is to such objectionable practices that allusion is made in this verse, which lays down the golden rule that, in order to prove a controversial point, the decisive and clearly worded parts of a Scripture should be taken into consideration, and that if they are found to contradict the construction put upon a certain ambiguous passage quoted in support of an argument, that interpretation should be rejected and the passage should be so interpreted as to make it harmonize with the decisive and clearly worded parts of the text.
This golden rule should always be observed whenever it is required to interpret or explain a passage which is susceptible of several interpretations and is not easily comprehensible. Its observance is all the more necessary when a seemingly difficult and knotty verse of the Quran is sought to be explained. Any interpretation which clashes with other verses of the Quran and runs counter to the clearly worded parts thereof should be rejected and only that interpretation which is in harmony with its basic principles should be accepted.
According to the verse, the Quran has two sets of verses. Some are محکم (decisive in meaning) and others متشابه(capable of different interpretations). The right way to interpret a متشابه verse is that only such interpretation of it should be accepted as agrees with the verses that are محکم and all other interpretations should be dismissed as incorrect. It is on record that one day the Holy Prophet, on hearing people disputing about the interpretation of certain verses of the Quran, angrily said: "Thus were ruined those who have gone before you. They interpreted certain parts of their scriptures in such a manner as to make them contradict other parts. But the Quran has been so revealed that different parts of it should corroborate one another. So do not reject any truth by making one part contradict the other. Act on what you understand thereof and refer that which you do not understand to those who know and understand it" (Musnad).
The above hadith also refutes the theory of abrogation, for it speaks of the Quran as a Book of which all parts corroborate one another and condemns those who think that some of its verses contradict others. To Ahmad, the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, goes the credit of exploding the so-called abrogation theory. He and his disciples have given convincing explanations of those verses which were previously regarded as abrogated.
It may be noted here that in 39:24 the whole Quran is called متشابه and in 11:2 all the Quranic verses have been described as محکم. This should not be taken as contradicting the verse under comment, according to which some verses of the Quran are محکم and others متشابه. The apparent in-consistency is easily explained. So far as the real significance of the Quranic verses is concerned the whole of the Quran is محکم (decisive), inasmuch as all its verses contain decisive and eternal truths. In another sense, however, the whole of the Quran is متشابه inasmuch as the Quranic verses have been so worded as to give, at one and the same time, several meanings equally true and good. The Quran is also متشابه (i.e.mutually resembling) in the sense that there is no contradiction or inconsistency in it, its different verses affording support to one another. But parts of it are certainly محکم or متشابه for different readers according to their mental and spiritual capacities, as the present verse points out.
As regards prophecies, those that are couched in plain and direct language, susceptible of only one meaning, would be regarded as محکم and those that are described in figurative or metaphorical language, capable of more than one interpretation, would be regarded as متشابه. The prophecies described in metaphorical language should, therefore, be interpreted in the light of the prophecies that have been clearly and literally fulfilled and also in the light of the basic and fundamental principles of Islam. For an example of محکم prophecies, the reader is referred to 58:22; whereas 28:86 contains a متشابه prophecy.
The term محکم may also be applied to such verses as embody full and complete commandments while متشابه verses are those which give only part of a certain commandment, and require to be read in conjunction with other verses to make a complete injunction.
Moreover, محکمات (decisive verses) generally deal with the Law and the doctrines of Faith, while متشابھات generally deal with topics of secondary importance or describe incidents in the lives of Prophets or the history of peoples and, while so doing, sometimes make use of idioms and phrases capable of different meanings. Such verses should not be so interpreted as to contradict the clear-worded tenets of the Faith.
The Arabic clause which has been translated as and none knows its right interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, ‘We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord', may be rendered in two ways, according as the pause is made after the word الله (Allah) or after the word العلم (knowledge). If the pause is made after العلم (knowledge), the clause would be translated as above and the term would in this case apply to verses pertaining to events of the past or verses containing general exhortation. If, however, the pause is made after الله (Allah), the term متشابھات would refer to prophecies of which the real interpretation is known to God only. In this case the clause would be translated as, "and none knows its interpretation except Allah; and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say, "We believe in it, the whole is from our Lord". Grammatically, both constructions are correct.
Finally, it may be noted that the use of metaphors, the main basis of متشابھات verses, in religious scriptures is necessary; (1) to assure vastness of meaning in the fewest of words; (2) to add beauty and grace to the style; and (3) to provide for the people a trial (ابتلاء) without which spiritual development and perfection is not possible.
c
11:2.
d
39:24.
e
7:54; 18:79.
f
4:163.
224
مُحْكَمْ (Muhkam) 的意思是: (1) 意义不会受到窜改或删减者; (2) 意义不含糊或不存在怀疑可能性者; (3) 意义清楚而解释明确者; (4) 包含«古兰经»特有教义的节文(مُفْرَدَات, Mufradat和Lane)。
225
اُمّ (Umm) 意指: (1) 母亲; (2) 事物的起源或基础; (3) 任何作为扶助、支持改革或修正另一事物手段的东西; (4) 与周围其它事物相联系的任何东西 (اَقْرَبْ, Aqrab和مُفْرَدَات, Mufradat)。
226
مُتَشَابِه (Mutashabih) 用於 (1)虽是一致, 但可以有不同解释的词语、句子或经节; (2) 彼此相似或一致的部分; (3) 经文的真正意义和没有表示出来的意义相类似的部分; (4) 经文的正确意思只有参照称为 مُحْكَمْ (Muhkam) 的经文才可知道; (5) 不经过反复考虑就不能正确理解的经文; (6) 经文含有的教义和先前启示的经文含有的教义相符或相似的部分 (مُفْرَدَات, Mufradat)。
227
تَأ وِيْل (Ta’wil) 意思是: (1) 解释或说明; (2) 讲话或文章的意义的推测; (3) 转变讲话或文章的正确解释; (4) 对梦的解释; (5) 事物的结束、结果或后果 (Lane)。在此节经文中该词出现两次。第一次的意思是 (2) 和 (3), 而第二次的意思是 (1) 或 (5)。
228
此节经文说明这样一个重要规则, 即为了证实一个有争论的观点, 应该考虑那明确而清楚的经文措辞。如果发现这些经文与某一意义不明确的章节的句子结构有抵触, 就应该把该章节解释得与措辞明确、清楚的经文相一致。根据此节经文来看, «古兰经» 有两种经文。一种是 مُحْكَمْ (Muhkam) 意义肯定而明确的, 另一种是 مُتَشَابِه (Mutashabih) 意义可作不同的解释的。正确解释 Mutashabih 经文的方法是, 只有把其经文解释得与 (Muhkam) 经文相一致。在39:24中, 整个 «古兰经» 被称作Mutashabih而在11:2中所有 «古兰经» 节文被说成是 Muhkam。这不应该被看作与在注释的这节经文相矛盾。根据在注解的这节经文, 有些 «古兰经» 节文是 Muhkam, 有些节文是 Mutashabih。就 «古兰经» 节文的真正意义而论, 整个 «古兰经» 是 Muhkam, 因为所有的节文包含明确而永恒的真理。然而, 从另一意义来说, 全本 «古兰经» 节文是Mutashabih, 因为 «古兰经» 每一节都同时表示几个同样正确和适当的意思, 就另一意义说, «古兰经» 也是Mutashabih 相互类似, 其中没有前后矛盾或相互不一致的地方, 不同的节文可以相互印证。(如同此节经文所指出的那样) 有些经文当然属於 (Muhkam), 有些属于Mutashabih, 这要看不同读者的知识、思想品质和天赋能力而定, 如本节所指示者。至于预言, 用明白、直接、只容许有一种意义的语言所表述的可以看作是 (Muhkam); 而用隐喻、能有不止一种解释的语言叙述的, 则可被看作 Mutashabih。因此, 应该按照确已实现了无疑的预言和伊斯兰教的基本原则来解释用隐喻的言语所叙述的预言。有关(Muhkam) 预言, 读者可参阅58:22; 而28:86则包含Mutashabih预言。(Muhkam) 这个词也适用那种包括充分而全面经律的经文; 而 Mutashabih经文只包容某一经律的一部分, 并且须与其它经文联系起来阅读, 才能形成一条完整的经律。مُحْكَمَات (Muhkamat) (明确的经文)通常论述伊斯兰教信仰的律令和教义; 而且 مُتَشَابِهَات (Mutashabihat) 论述次要的论题或叙述众先知的生平轶事或各民族史, 在论述中有时就用一些可能会产生不同意思的成语和短语。这样的经文的解释不应与措辞清楚的伊斯兰教信仰的教义相矛盾。这里可以注意到: 为了用最少的词来表达众多的意思, 为了使经文风格优雅, 为了使人们受到磨炼--------如果没有这种磨炼, 人们的心灵就不可能深化和完美--------就需要使用隐喻, 而隐喻是经典中Mutashabih经文的主要基础。
1
مُحْکَمٰتٌ محکمات سے مراد وہ آیات ہیں جن میں قرآن کریم کی خاص تعلیم بیان ہوئی ہے۔
2
مُتَشٰبِھٰتٌ سے مراد وہ آیات ہیں جن میں ایسی تعلیم ہے جو پہلی کتابوں میں بھی مذکور ہے۔
3
یعنی جو آیات پہلی کتب کی تعلیم سے ملتی ہیں وہ ان کو بگاڑ کر پہلی قوموں کی روایات کے تابع کر دیتے ہیں اور اس طرح قرآن کریم کی خوبی کو چھپا دیتے ہیں۔
a
11:2.
b
39:24.
c
7:54; 18:79.
d
4:163.
299
Important Words:
محکمات (decisive in meaning) is derived from احکم which again is derived from حکم which means, he decided or he judged; he prevented or restrained or withheld. احکمه means, he rendered it firm, stable and secure; he restrained it. Hence محکم means: (1) that which has been made secure from change or alteration; (2) that in which there is no ambiguity or possibility of doubt; (3) that which is clear in meaning and decisive in exposition (Aqrab, Mufradat & Lane).
ام (basis) is the noun-infinitive from ام (amma), i.e. he aimed at or sought or took himself to. ام possesses a variety of meanings some of which are: (1) mother; (2) source or origin or basis of a thing; (3) anything which is a means of sustenance and support or of reformation and correction for another; (4) anything to which other things surrounding it are linked (Aqrab & Mufradat).
متشابھات (susceptible of different interpretations) is the plural of متشابھة which is derived from شبه. They say شبھه به i.e. he made it to be like that; he likened it to that. شبه علیه الامر means, he rendered the affair confused or obscure or ambiguous to him. تشابه الرجلان means, the two men were so like each other that it was difficult to distinguish one from the other. متشابهmeans, mutually resembling. Thus the expressions متشابھه is used about (1) that phrase, sentence or verse which is susceptible of different, though concordant, interpretations; or (2) that whose parts resemble or are concordant with one another; or (3) that whose true significance bears a similarity to a sense which is not meant; or (4) that of which the true meaning is known only by referring it to what is termed محکم (decisive); or (5) that which cannot be rightly understood without repeated consideration (Aqrab, Lane & Mufradat).
زیغ (perversity) is the noun-infinitive from زاغ which means, he declined or deviated, or turned aside from the right course. So زیغ means, deviation from the truth or the right course; crookedness; doubt. ازاغه means, he made him deviate from the right course (Aqrab & Mufradat).
تاویله (its interpretation). تاویل is the noun-infinitive from اول which is derived from آل i.e. he or it turned or returned. اولهmeans, he caused it or him to turn or return. اول الکلام means, he interpreted or explained the speech or writing. اول الرؤیاmeans, he interpreted the dream. تاویل means, (1) interpretation or explanation; (2) conjecture about the meaning of a speech or writing; (3) turning away a speech or writing from its right interpretation; (4) interpretation of a dream; (5) end, result or sequel of a thing (Lane & Aqrab). In the present verse the word تاویل occurs twice, the first-mentioned تاویلgiving the second or the third meaning, while the second-mentioned gives the first or the fifth meaning.
الراسخون (firmly grounded) is the plural of الراسخ which is derived from رسخ i.e. he or it was or became firm, stable or established. رسخ الشیءmeans, the thing became firmly established. رسخ العلم فی قلبه means, knowledge became firmly established, or sank deep, in his heart. الراسخ فی العلم is one whose knowledge is extensive and deep-rooted, being firmly established and based on sure ground (Aqrab & Mufradat).
Commentary:
The verse, which was revealed when a party of Christians from Najran visited the Holy Prophet in Medina (Jarir), serves a fourfold purpose: (1) it gives the genesis of the later Christian doctrines and explains how the true original doctrines became perverted; (2) it tells how the critics of Islam, particularly the Christians, distort true Islamic teachings in order to find an excuse for attacking Islam; (3) it warns Muslims to take a lesson from the history of Christians; and (4) it supplies a sure and trustworthy principle of interpreting revealed Books, or, for that matter, any writing or speech, in a right manner.
What proved the perversion of the Christian faith was that expressions like "Son of God" etc. used metaphorically were taken literally and the simple and straightforward faith of Jesus was transformed out of all recognition, the متشابهbeing given the place of محکم.
Again, it is on record that when the party of Christians, referred to above, visited the Holy Prophet and had a discussion with him on the godhead of Jesus, they, like clever casuists, who when it suits their purpose tear a passage from its context and then base their arguments on it, asked the Holy Prophet if the words کلمة الله (word of God) and روح(spirit) were used about Jesus in the Quran, and, receiving an answer in the affirmative, joyfully exclaimed that the divinity of Jesus was thereby proved. They did not care to ponder over the explanation of these words in their context, which did not at all bear out the sense which they thought they possessed. It is to such objectionable practices that allusion is made in this verse, which lays down the golden rule that, in order to prove a controversial point, the decisive and clearly worded parts of a Scripture should be taken into consideration, and that if they are found to contradict the construction put upon a certain ambiguous passage quoted in support of an argument, that interpretation should be rejected and the passage should be so interpreted as to make it harmonize with the decisive and clearly worded parts of the text.
This golden rule should always be observed whenever it is required to interpret or explain a passage which is susceptible of several interpretations and is not easily comprehensible. Its observance is all the more necessary when a seemingly difficult and knotty verse of the Quran is sought to be explained. Any interpretation which clashes with other verses of the Quran and runs counter to the clearly worded parts thereof should be rejected and only that interpretation which is in harmony with its basic principles should be accepted.
According to the verse, the Quran has two sets of verses. Some are محکم (decisive in meaning) and others متشابه(capable of different interpretations). The right way to interpret a متشابه verse is that only such interpretation of it should be accepted as agrees with the verses that are محکم and all other interpretations should be dismissed as incorrect. It is on record that one day the Holy Prophet, on hearing people disputing about the interpretation of certain verses of the Quran, angrily said: "Thus were ruined those who have gone before you. They interpreted certain parts of their scriptures in such a manner as to make them contradict other parts. But the Quran has been so revealed that different parts of it should corroborate one another. So do not reject any truth by making one part contradict the other. Act on what you understand thereof and refer that which you do not understand to those who know and understand it" (Musnad).
The above hadith also refutes the theory of abrogation, for it speaks of the Quran as a Book of which all parts corroborate one another and condemns those who think that some of its verses contradict others. To Ahmad, the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, goes the credit of exploding the so-called abrogation theory. He and his disciples have given convincing explanations of those verses which were previously regarded as abrogated.
It may be noted here that in 39:24 the whole Quran is called متشابه and in 11:2 all the Quranic verses have been described as محکم. This should not be taken as contradicting the verse under comment, according to which some verses of the Quran are محکم and others متشابه. The apparent in-consistency is easily explained. So far as the real significance of the Quranic verses is concerned the whole of the Quran is محکم (decisive), inasmuch as all its verses contain decisive and eternal truths. In another sense, however, the whole of the Quran is متشابه inasmuch as the Quranic verses have been so worded as to give, at one and the same time, several meanings equally true and good. The Quran is also متشابه (i.e.mutually resembling) in the sense that there is no contradiction or inconsistency in it, its different verses affording support to one another. But parts of it are certainly محکم or متشابه for different readers according to their mental and spiritual capacities, as the present verse points out.
As regards prophecies, those that are couched in plain and direct language, susceptible of only one meaning, would be regarded as محکم and those that are described in figurative or metaphorical language, capable of more than one interpretation, would be regarded as متشابه. The prophecies described in metaphorical language should, therefore, be interpreted in the light of the prophecies that have been clearly and literally fulfilled and also in the light of the basic and fundamental principles of Islam. For an example of محکم prophecies, the reader is referred to 58:22; whereas 28:86 contains a متشابه prophecy.
The term محکم may also be applied to such verses as embody full and complete commandments while متشابه verses are those which give only part of a certain commandment, and require to be read in conjunction with other verses to make a complete injunction.
Moreover, محکمات (decisive verses) generally deal with the Law and the doctrines of Faith, while متشابھات generally deal with topics of secondary importance or describe incidents in the lives of Prophets or the history of peoples and, while so doing, sometimes make use of idioms and phrases capable of different meanings. Such verses should not be so interpreted as to contradict the clear-worded tenets of the Faith.
The Arabic clause which has been translated as and none knows its right interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, ‘We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord', may be rendered in two ways, according as the pause is made after the word الله (Allah) or after the word العلم (knowledge). If the pause is made after العلم (knowledge), the clause would be translated as above and the term would in this case apply to verses pertaining to events of the past or verses containing general exhortation. If, however, the pause is made after الله (Allah), the term متشابھات would refer to prophecies of which the real interpretation is known to God only. In this case the clause would be translated as, "and none knows its interpretation except Allah; and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say, "We believe in it, the whole is from our Lord". Grammatically, both constructions are correct.
Finally, it may be noted that the use of metaphors, the main basis of متشابھات verses, in religious scriptures is necessary; (1) to assure vastness of meaning in the fewest of words; (2) to add beauty and grace to the style; and (3) to provide for the people a trial (ابتلاء) without which spiritual development and perfection is not possible.
a
7:54; 18:79.
b
4:163.
d
11:2.
e
39:24.
369
Muhkam means, (1) that which has been made secure from change or alteration; (2) that in which there is no ambiguity or possibility of doubt; (3) that which is clear in meaning and decisive in exposition and (4) a verse which embodies a teaching special to the Qur’an (Mufradat & Lane).
370
Umm means, (1) mother; (2) source or origin or basis of a thing; (3) anything which is a means of sustenance and support or of reformation and correction for another; (4) anything to which other things around it are linked (Aqrab & Mufradat).
371
Mutashabih is used about (1) that phrase, sentence or verse which is susceptible of different, though concordant, interpretations; (2) that whose parts resemble or are concordant with one another; (3) that whose true significance bears a similarity to a sense which is not meant; (4) that of which the true meaning is known only by referring it to what is termed Muhkam; (5) that which cannot be rightly understood without repeated consideration; (6) a verse which contains teaching corresponding to or resembling those contained in the previous revealed Scriptures (Mufradat).
372
Ta’wil means, (1) interpretation or explanation; (2) conjecture about the meaning of a speech or writing; (3) turning away a speech or writing from its right interpretation; (4) interpretation of a dream; (5) end, result or sequel of a thing (Lane). In this verse the word occurs twice; in the former place it gives the second or the third meaning, while in the latter it gives the first or the fifth meaning.
373
The verse lays down the golden rule that, in order to prove a controversial point, the decisive and clearly worded parts of a Scripture should be taken into consideration, and if these are found to contradict the construction put upon a certain ambiguous passage that passage should be so interpreted as to make it harmonize with the decisive and clearly worded parts of the text. According to the verse, the Qur’an has two sets of verses. Some are Muhkam (firm and decisive in meaning) and others Mutashabih (capable of different interpretations). The right way to interpret a Mutashabih verse is that only such interpretation of it should be accepted as agrees with the verses that are Muhkam. In 39:24 the whole of the Qur’an is called Mutashabih and in 11:2 all the Quranic verses have been described as Muhkam. This should not be taken as contradicting the verse under comment, according to which some verses of the Qur’an are Muhkam and others Mutashabih
بَدِیۡعُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالۡاَرۡضِ ۖ وَاِذَا قَضٰۤی اَمۡرًا فَاِنَّمَا یَقُوۡلُ لَہٗ کُنۡ فَیَکُوۡنُ
6:102.
3:48; 6:74; 16:41; 36:83; 40:69.
This attribute not only constitutes a contradiction of the Christian dogma of the godhead of Jesus but also effectively repudiates the Hindu theory that soul and matter are primeval and eternal. (1) God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth which means that He did not require the help of a son, and for that matter of anybody else, for creating the universe. (2) He is the Originator of the universe, i.e. He created all things out of nothing, without a pre-existing model and without pre-existing matter. (3) He is All- Powerful, i.e. whenever He decrees that a certain thing should come into being, it does come into being in conformity with His decree and design. The verse does not necessarily mean, as is sometimes erroneously understood, that when God decrees that a certain thing should come into being, it comes into being all at once. What it means is that when God decrees a thing, nothing can thwart His decree.
6:102.
3:48; 6:74; 16:41; 36:83; 40:69.
Important Words:
بدیع (Originator) is derived from بدع which means, he originated a thing or brought it into existence newly (i.e. for the first time, the thing not having existed before) and not after the similitude of anything pre-existing (Lane). The word ابداع(which is the infinitive form of بدیع), when used about God, means, originating a thing without any tool or instrument or pattern and without matter (Mufradat). Thus the word combines the idea of originating and creating.
Commentary:
This verse not only contains a contradiction of the Christian dogma of the Godhead of Jesus but also effectively repudiates the Hindu theory that the soul and matter are primeval and eternal. God has been declared here to be: (1) the Creator of the heavens and the earth which means that He did not require the help of a son, and for that matter of anybody, in creating the universe; (2) the Originator of the Universe, i.e., He created all things out of nothing, without a pre-existing model and without pre-existing matter; (3) All-Powerful, i.e. whenever He decrees that a certain thing should come into being, it does come into being in conformity with His decree and design. It may be noted here that the verse does not necessarily mean, as is sometimes erroneously understood, that when God decrees that a certain thing should be, it comes into being at once. The verse only means that God’s will is all-powerful, so when He decrees a thing, nothing can thwart His decree. The verse does not thus refer to the factor of time, which may be short or long as God wills it.
a
6:102.
b
3:48; 6:74; 16:41; 36:83; 40:69.
a
6:102.
b
3:48; 6:74; 16:41; 36:83; 40:69.
124
Important Words:
بدیع (Originator) is derived from بدع which means, he originated a thing or brought it into existence newly (i.e. for the first time, the thing not having existed before) and not after the similitude of anything pre-existing (Lane). The word ابداع(which is the infinitive form of بدیع), when used about God, means, originating a thing without any tool or instrument or pattern and without matter (Mufradat). Thus the word combines the idea of originating and creating.
Commentary:
This verse not only contains a contradiction of the Christian dogma of the Godhead of Jesus but also effectively repudiates the Hindu theory that the soul and matter are primeval and eternal. God has been declared here to be: (1) the Creator of the heavens and the earth which means that He did not require the help of a son, and for that matter of anybody, in creating the universe; (2) the Originator of the Universe, i.e., He created all things out of nothing, without a pre-existing model and without pre-existing matter; (3) All-Powerful, i.e. whenever He decrees that a certain thing should come into being, it does come into being in conformity with His decree and design. It may be noted here that the verse does not necessarily mean, as is sometimes erroneously understood, that when God decrees that a certain thing should be, it comes into being at once. The verse only means that God’s will is all-powerful, so when He decrees a thing, nothing can thwart His decree. The verse does not thus refer to the factor of time, which may be short or long as God wills it.
b
6:102.
c
3:48; 6:74; 16:41; 36:83; 40:69.
140
This attribute not only constitutes a contradiction of the Christian dogma of the godhead of Jesus but also effectively repudiates the Hindu theory that soul and matter are primeval and eternal. (1) God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth which means that He did not require the help of a son, and for that matter of anybody else, for creating the universe. (2) He is the Originator of the universe, i.e. He created all things out of nothing, without a pre-existing model and without pre-existing matter. (3) He is All- Powerful, i.e. whenever He decrees that a certain thing should come into being, it does come into being in conformity with His decree and design. The verse does not necessarily mean, as is sometimes erroneously understood, that when God decrees that a certain thing should come into being, it comes into being all at once. What it means is that when God decrees a thing, nothing can thwart His decree.
۞ سَیَقُوۡلُ السُّفَہَآءُ مِنَ النَّاسِ مَا وَلّٰٮہُمۡ عَنۡ قِبۡلَتِہِمُ الَّتِیۡ کَانُوۡا عَلَیۡہَا ۚ قُل لِّلّٰہِ الۡمَشۡرِقُ وَالۡمَغۡرِبُ ۚ یَہۡدِیۡ مَنۡ یَّشَآءُ اِلٰی صِرٰطٍ مُّسۡتَقِیۡمٍ
2:116.
تحویل قبلہ کا واقعہ مدینہ منورہ میں ہوا۔ مکہ تک کوئی مشکل نہ تھی۔ آنحضرت صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم ایسی جگہ پر کھڑے ہوتے تھے کہ سامنے کعبہ بھی رہتا تھا اور بیت المقدس بھی۔ یہودی اس پر خوش ہوتے تھے کہ ہمارے قبلہ کی طرف بھی رُخ ہے۔ جب آنحضرت صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم مدینہ میں تشریف لائے تو چند ماہ بعد الہام ہوا کہ کعبہ کی طرف منہ کرو‘ خواہ بیت المقدس کی طرف سے رخ بدل جائے۔ سو آپ نے ایسا ہی کیا۔ اس پر بیوقوفوں نے اعتراض کیا جس کا جواب ان آیات میں دیا گیا ہے کہ کعبہ اپنی ذات میں کوئی چیز نہیں۔ اصل چیز خداتعالیٰ کی ذات ہے اور اس کے لئے مشرق و مغرب برابر ہیں۔
See 2:116.
In the foregoing several verses a pointed reference was made to the fact that in pursuance of a Divine plan the Patriarch Abraham had settled his wife Hagar and son Ishmael in the bleak and barren Valley of Mecca. When Ishmael grew up, Abraham rebuilt the Ka‘bah with his assistance and while rebuilding it prayed to God to raise among the Arabs a great Prophet, who should be humanity’s Guide and Leader for all time. When, however, in the fulness of time that great Prophet appeared, God’s eternal plan came into operation and the Ka‘bah was made the Qiblah for the whole of mankind. But while at Mecca, the Holy Prophet, in conformity with his old practice and also by Divine command, turned his face in Prayer to the Temple at Jerusalem which was the Qiblah of the Israelite Prophets. In Medina also he kept facing towards Jerusalem. But after a few months he was commanded by Divine revelation to turn his face towards the Ka‘bah. This was objected to by the Jews. The verse under comment fur
See 2:116.
Important Words:
قبلتھم (their Qiblah). The word قبلة is derived from قبل. They say قبل علی الشیء i.e. he began the thing and stuck to it. قبل المکانmeans, he came facing the house. اقبل علیه means, he advanced facing him. اقبل فلانا الشیء means, he put the thing before such a one or in front of him. قبلة means: (1) direction.; (2) direction to which a man turns while praying; (3) anything which one faces; (4) the Ka‘bah at Mecca to which Muslims turn their faces when praying (Aqrab).
Commentary:
In the preceding verses the Quran spoke of the people that have gone before, at the same time hinting at the difference between their deeds and those of the Muslims. In the present verse it introduces a subject in which the Muslims differ from other People of the Book, i.e. the subject of قبلة (Qiblah).
It is a usual practice with the Quran that it does not abruptly give any new commandment such as might appear hard to men. It generally begins by preparing the ground for the acceptance of such commandment by giving arguments in its favour and answering some objections that might possibly arise against it. See also 2:184, 185.
Similar is the case here. As the commandment regarding the change of Qiblah was likely to prove a stumbling block for some people, so the ground is prepared by making a general observation to the effect that the selection of a particular direction does not really matter. What matters is the spirit of obedience to God on the one hand and unity among the Faithful on the other. The clause, To Allah belong the East and the West, signifies that the selection of the East or the West is not of much importance, the real object being God only. The selection of a particular direction is primarily meant for the purpose of unity among the Faithful. But the direction must also be good, and God was now going to choose a good direction for the Muslims and the objections of the people would prove their own folly.
c
2:116.
1
تحویل قبلہ کا واقعہ مدینہ منورہ میں ہوا۔ مکہ تک کوئی مشکل نہ تھی۔ آنحضرت صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم ایسی جگہ پر کھڑے ہوتے تھے کہ سامنے کعبہ بھی رہتا تھا اور بیت المقدس بھی۔ یہودی اس پر خوش ہوتے تھے کہ ہمارے قبلہ کی طرف بھی رُخ ہے۔ جب آنحضرت صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم مدینہ میں تشریف لائے تو چند ماہ بعد الہام ہوا کہ کعبہ کی طرف منہ کرو‘ خواہ بیت المقدس کی طرف سے رخ بدل جائے۔ سو آپ نے ایسا ہی کیا۔ اس پر بیوقوفوں نے اعتراض کیا جس کا جواب ان آیات میں دیا گیا ہے کہ کعبہ اپنی ذات میں کوئی چیز نہیں۔ اصل چیز خداتعالیٰ کی ذات ہے اور اس کے لئے مشرق و مغرب برابر ہیں۔
a
See 2:116.
149
Important Words:
قبلتھم (their Qiblah). The word قبلة is derived from قبل. They say قبل علی الشیء i.e. he began the thing and stuck to it. قبل المکانmeans, he came facing the house. اقبل علیه means, he advanced facing him. اقبل فلانا الشیء means, he put the thing before such a one or in front of him. قبلة means: (1) direction.; (2) direction to which a man turns while praying; (3) anything which one faces; (4) the Ka‘bah at Mecca to which Muslims turn their faces when praying (Aqrab).
Commentary:
In the preceding verses the Quran spoke of the people that have gone before, at the same time hinting at the difference between their deeds and those of the Muslims. In the present verse it introduces a subject in which the Muslims differ from other People of the Book, i.e. the subject of قبلة (Qiblah).
It is a usual practice with the Quran that it does not abruptly give any new commandment such as might appear hard to men. It generally begins by preparing the ground for the acceptance of such commandment by giving arguments in its favour and answering some objections that might possibly arise against it. See also 2:184, 185.
Similar is the case here. As the commandment regarding the change of Qiblah was likely to prove a stumbling block for some people, so the ground is prepared by making a general observation to the effect that the selection of a particular direction does not really matter. What matters is the spirit of obedience to God on the one hand and unity among the Faithful on the other. The clause, To Allah belong the East and the West, signifies that the selection of the East or the West is not of much importance, the real object being God only. The selection of a particular direction is primarily meant for the purpose of unity among the Faithful. But the direction must also be good, and God was now going to choose a good direction for the Muslims and the objections of the people would prove their own folly.
a
See 2:116.
159
In the foregoing several verses a pointed reference was made to the fact that in pursuance of a Divine plan the Patriarch Abraham had settled his wife Hagar and son Ishmael in the bleak and barren Valley of Mecca. When Ishmael grew up, Abraham rebuilt the Ka‘bah with his assistance and while rebuilding it prayed to God to raise among the Arabs a great Prophet, who should be humanity’s Guide and Leader for all time. When, however, in the fulness of time that great Prophet appeared, God’s eternal plan came into operation and the Ka‘bah was made the Qiblah for the whole of mankind. But while at Mecca, the Holy Prophet, in conformity with his old practice and also by Divine command, turned his face in Prayer to the Temple at Jerusalem which was the Qiblah of the Israelite Prophets. In Medina also he kept facing towards Jerusalem. But after a few months he was commanded by Divine revelation to turn his face towards the Ka‘bah. This was objected to by the Jews. The verse under comment fur
اَلَّذِیۡنَ یَقُوۡلُوۡنَ رَبَّنَاۤ اِنَّنَاۤ اٰمَنَّا فَاغۡفِرۡ لَنَا ذُنُوۡبَنَا وَقِنَا عَذَابَ النَّارِ
3:194; 7:156; 23:110; 60:6.
ذُنُوْب (Dhunub) 是 ذَنْب (Dhanb) 的复数词, 意指有意的过失、恶行、罪行以及一件该责备的事情。此词与 اِثْم (Ithm) 不同之处在於: Dhanb既可指故意而犯又可指疏忽而犯的罪过。Ithm指特别故意触犯的罪过。Dhanb也可指那种引起危害性后果的过失以及使某人可能受到斥备的错误。Dhanb其实意味着那种人性所固有的弱点和缺点, 就像ذَنَب (Dhanab, 尾巴, 或人类的相应身体部分)依附于驱体一样, 也就是人类天生的弱点和缺点 (Lane和مُفْرَدَات, Mufradat)。
3:194; 7:156; 23:110; 60:6.
Dhunub is the plural of Dhanb which means, a fault, a misdeed, an offence, a thing for which one is blameable, if one does it intentionally. It differs from Ithm in that Dhanb may be either intentional or committed through inadvertence, Ithm is peculiarly intentional. Or Dhanb means, such errors and mistakes as bring about a harmful result or make one liable to be called to account. Really, Dhanb signifies such failings or shortcomings as adhere to human nature, Just as Dhanab (tail, or in man, the corresponding part of the body) adheres to the body, i.e. natural failings and shortcomings in man (Lane & Mufradat).
3:194; 7:156; 23:110; 60:6.
Important Words:
ذنوب (faults) which is the plural of ذنب (fault) is derived from the root ذنب (dhanaba). They say ذنبه (dhanaba-hu), i.e. he followed his tail, not quitting its track; he followed him in any case, never quitting his track, the word ذنب (dhanab) meaning a tail, or, in man, the part of the body corresponding to the tail. ذنب (dhanb) means a fault, a misdeed, an offence, a thing for which one is blameable, if one does it intentionally. It differs from اثم (sin) in that whereas ذنب may be either intentional or committed through inadvertence, اثم is peculiarly intentional (Lane). According to Ar-Raghib, ذنب means, such errors and mistakes as bring about a harmful result or make one liable to be called to account (Mufradat). Really ذنب (dhanb) signifies such failings or shortcomings as adhere to human nature, just as dhanab ذنب (tail, or in man, the corresponding part of the body) adheres to the body, i.e. natural failings and shortcomings in man.
a
3:194; 7:156; 23:110; 60:6.
230
ذُنُوْب (Dhunub) 是 ذَنْب (Dhanb) 的复数词, 意指有意的过失、恶行、罪行以及一件该责备的事情。此词与 اِثْم (Ithm) 不同之处在於: Dhanb既可指故意而犯又可指疏忽而犯的罪过。Ithm指特别故意触犯的罪过。Dhanb也可指那种引起危害性后果的过失以及使某人可能受到斥备的错误。Dhanb其实意味着那种人性所固有的弱点和缺点, 就像ذَنَب (Dhanab, 尾巴, 或人类的相应身体部分)依附于驱体一样, 也就是人类天生的弱点和缺点 (Lane和مُفْرَدَات, Mufradat)。
d
3:194; 7:156; 23:110; 60:6.
308
Important Words:
ذنوب (faults) which is the plural of ذنب (fault) is derived from the root ذنب (dhanaba). They say ذنبه (dhanaba-hu), i.e. he followed his tail, not quitting its track; he followed him in any case, never quitting his track, the word ذنب (dhanab) meaning a tail, or, in man, the part of the body corresponding to the tail. ذنب (dhanb) means a fault, a misdeed, an offence, a thing for which one is blameable, if one does it intentionally. It differs from اثم (sin) in that whereas ذنب may be either intentional or committed through inadvertence, اثم is peculiarly intentional (Lane). According to Ar-Raghib, ذنب means, such errors and mistakes as bring about a harmful result or make one liable to be called to account (Mufradat). Really ذنب (dhanb) signifies such failings or shortcomings as adhere to human nature, just as dhanab ذنب (tail, or in man, the corresponding part of the body) adheres to the body, i.e. natural failings and shortcomings in man.
d
3:194; 7:156; 23:110; 60:6.
380
Dhunub is the plural of Dhanb which means, a fault, a misdeed, an offence, a thing for which one is blameable, if one does it intentionally. It differs from Ithm in that Dhanb may be either intentional or committed through inadvertence, Ithm is peculiarly intentional. Or Dhanb means, such errors and mistakes as bring about a harmful result or make one liable to be called to account. Really, Dhanb signifies such failings or shortcomings as adhere to human nature, Just as Dhanab (tail, or in man, the corresponding part of the body) adheres to the body, i.e. natural failings and shortcomings in man (Lane & Mufradat).
قَالَتۡ رَبِّ اَنّٰی یَکُوۡنُ لِیۡ وَلَدٌ وَّلَمۡ یَمۡسَسۡنِیۡ بَشَرٌ ۖ قَالَ کَذٰلِکِ اللّٰہُ یَخۡلُقُ مَا یَشَآءُ ۚ اِذَا قَضٰۤی اَمۡرًا فَاِنَّمَا یَقُوۡلُ لَہٗ کُنۡ فَیَکُوۡنُ
See 2:118.
19:21.
The news of a son, however happy, in ordinary circumstances, must have greatly perplexed Mary who was not only still unmarried but was also meant to remain so for life. The verse reflects her justified perplexity. It also shows that Jesus had no father, as hinted in Mary’s words, no man has touched me. Having been dedicated to the service of the Temple, Mary could not, consistently with her vow of celibacy, marry. If she was to marry and have children in due course, there was no occasion for her to be surprised when the birth of a child was announced to her by the angel in a vision. No normal girl would be surprised, if she were told in a vision that a son would be born to her; for she would naturally infer that the promised child would be born to her after marriage. In the Gospel of Mary, the vow of celibacy is clearly referred to. We have it in chapter 5 of the said Gospel that when the high priest made a general order that all the virgins living in the Temple who had reached their fourteenth ye
19:21.
See 2:118.
Commentary:
The news of a son, however happy in ordinary circumstances, greatly perplexed Mary who was not only as yet unmarried but was also meant to remain so for life. The verse reflects her justified perplexity. It also shows that Jesus had no father, as hinted in Mary’s words, no man has touched me. Having been dedicated to the service of the Temple, Mary could not, consistently with her vow of celibacy, marry. If she was to marry and have children in due course there was no occasion for her to be surprised when the birth of a child was announced to her by the angel in a vision. No normal girl would be surprised if she were told in a vision that a son would be born to her; for she would naturally infer that the promised child would be born to her after marriage. In the Gospel of Mary, the vow of celibacy is clearly referred to. In chapter 5 of the said Gospel we read that when the high priest made a public order that all the virgins living in the temple who had reached their fourteenth year should return home, all the other virgins yielded obed-ience to this command, but "Mary the virgin of the Lord" alone answered that she could not comply with it; and for this refusal of hers she assigned the reason that both she and her parents had devoted her to the service of the Lord, and that she had vowed virginity to the Lord, which vow she was resolved never to break (Gospel of Mary, 5: 4, 5, 6).
Mary’s subsequent marriage with Joseph was thus contrary to the vow and against her own wish. She was, however, compelled by circumstances to marry when found with child. The priests had to arrange her marriage with Joseph in order to avoid scandal. It does not, however, appear from the Gospels how Joseph was prevailed upon to consent, for he was obviously in the dark about her being pregnant at the time of marriage (Matt. 1:18, 19). Presumably some plausible excuse was found to justify the breaking of the vow.
Christians and Jews are both agreed that the birth of Jesus was something out of the ordinary–the Christians holding it as supernatural and the Jews as illegitimate (Jew. Enc.). Even in the family birth register, Jesus’ birth was recorded as such (Talmud). This fact alone should constitute a sufficient proof of Jesus’ birth being out of the ordinary. But it was neither supernatural nor illegitimate. To quote only one medical authority: "Medical men have not ruled out altogether the possibility of natural parthenogenesis of the production of a child by a female, without any relation to a male. Such a statement off-hand appears ridiculous, yet its possibility, from a purely biological standpoint, under certain conditions cannot be disregarded. Dr. Timme calls attention to this possibility as the result of a certain type of tumours, known as arrhenoblastoma (from the Greek words for "male" and "germ") which are occasionally found in the female pelvis or lower body. These tumours are capable of generating male sperm cells. Naturally, if these male sperm cells were alive and active and came in contact with the female’s own egg cell or ovum, conception might occur. There is nothing illogical in this process of reasoning…Dr. Timme states that there are twenty authentic cases reported in Europe in which an arrhenoblastoma had been found to develop male sperm cells…The arrhenoblastoma is a tumour that contains blastodermic cells...These cells are creative structures and are capable of development at any time and the fact, therefore, that arrhenoblas-tomacontaining these "embryonic cells" might create testicular tissue, capable of producing male sperm cells seems scientifically not impossible. If living male sperm cells are produced in a female body by arrhenoblastoma, the possibility of self-fertilization of a woman, even though a virgin, cannot be denied. That is to say, her own body would produce the same result as though sperm cells from a man’s body had been transferred to hers in the more usual way, or by a physician’s aid" (American Medical Journal).
There are cases on record of children having been born without fathers: "A young girl of great moral purity became pregnant without the slightest knowledge of the source… There is a case of pregnancy in an unmarried woman, who successfully resisted an attempt at criminal connection and yet became impreg-nated and gave birth to a perfectly formed female child" (Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine by George M. Gould, A.M., M.D., and Walter L. Payle, A.M., M.D., published by W. B. Saunders & Co., London).
b
19:21.
c
2:118.
a
19:21.
b
See 2:118.
337
Commentary:
The news of a son, however happy in ordinary circumstances, greatly perplexed Mary who was not only as yet unmarried but was also meant to remain so for life. The verse reflects her justified perplexity. It also shows that Jesus had no father, as hinted in Mary’s words, no man has touched me. Having been dedicated to the service of the Temple, Mary could not, consistently with her vow of celibacy, marry. If she was to marry and have children in due course there was no occasion for her to be surprised when the birth of a child was announced to her by the angel in a vision. No normal girl would be surprised if she were told in a vision that a son would be born to her; for she would naturally infer that the promised child would be born to her after marriage. In the Gospel of Mary, the vow of celibacy is clearly referred to. In chapter 5 of the said Gospel we read that when the high priest made a public order that all the virgins living in the temple who had reached their fourteenth year should return home, all the other virgins yielded obed-ience to this command, but "Mary the virgin of the Lord" alone answered that she could not comply with it; and for this refusal of hers she assigned the reason that both she and her parents had devoted her to the service of the Lord, and that she had vowed virginity to the Lord, which vow she was resolved never to break (Gospel of Mary, 5: 4, 5, 6).
Mary’s subsequent marriage with Joseph was thus contrary to the vow and against her own wish. She was, however, compelled by circumstances to marry when found with child. The priests had to arrange her marriage with Joseph in order to avoid scandal. It does not, however, appear from the Gospels how Joseph was prevailed upon to consent, for he was obviously in the dark about her being pregnant at the time of marriage (Matt. 1:18, 19). Presumably some plausible excuse was found to justify the breaking of the vow.
Christians and Jews are both agreed that the birth of Jesus was something out of the ordinary–the Christians holding it as supernatural and the Jews as illegitimate (Jew. Enc.). Even in the family birth register, Jesus’ birth was recorded as such (Talmud). This fact alone should constitute a sufficient proof of Jesus’ birth being out of the ordinary. But it was neither supernatural nor illegitimate. To quote only one medical authority: "Medical men have not ruled out altogether the possibility of natural parthenogenesis of the production of a child by a female, without any relation to a male. Such a statement off-hand appears ridiculous, yet its possibility, from a purely biological standpoint, under certain conditions cannot be disregarded. Dr. Timme calls attention to this possibility as the result of a certain type of tumours, known as arrhenoblastoma (from the Greek words for "male" and "germ") which are occasionally found in the female pelvis or lower body. These tumours are capable of generating male sperm cells. Naturally, if these male sperm cells were alive and active and came in contact with the female’s own egg cell or ovum, conception might occur. There is nothing illogical in this process of reasoning…Dr. Timme states that there are twenty authentic cases reported in Europe in which an arrhenoblastoma had been found to develop male sperm cells…The arrhenoblastoma is a tumour that contains blastodermic cells...These cells are creative structures and are capable of development at any time and the fact, therefore, that arrhenoblas-tomacontaining these "embryonic cells" might create testicular tissue, capable of producing male sperm cells seems scientifically not impossible. If living male sperm cells are produced in a female body by arrhenoblastoma, the possibility of self-fertilization of a woman, even though a virgin, cannot be denied. That is to say, her own body would produce the same result as though sperm cells from a man’s body had been transferred to hers in the more usual way, or by a physician’s aid" (American Medical Journal).
There are cases on record of children having been born without fathers: "A young girl of great moral purity became pregnant without the slightest knowledge of the source… There is a case of pregnancy in an unmarried woman, who successfully resisted an attempt at criminal connection and yet became impreg-nated and gave birth to a perfectly formed female child" (Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine by George M. Gould, A.M., M.D., and Walter L. Payle, A.M., M.D., published by W. B. Saunders & Co., London).
a
See 2:118.
b
19:21.
419
The news of a son, however happy, in ordinary circumstances, must have greatly perplexed Mary who was not only still unmarried but was also meant to remain so for life. The verse reflects her justified perplexity. It also shows that Jesus had no father, as hinted in Mary’s words, no man has touched me. Having been dedicated to the service of the Temple, Mary could not, consistently with her vow of celibacy, marry. If she was to marry and have children in due course, there was no occasion for her to be surprised when the birth of a child was announced to her by the angel in a vision. No normal girl would be surprised, if she were told in a vision that a son would be born to her; for she would naturally infer that the promised child would be born to her after marriage. In the Gospel of Mary, the vow of celibacy is clearly referred to. We have it in chapter 5 of the said Gospel that when the high priest made a general order that all the virgins living in the Temple who had reached their fourteenth ye