بِهَٰذَآ
Appears 2 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 2 verses containing "بِهَٰذَآ".
قَالُوا۟ ٱتَّخَذَ ٱللَّهُ وَلَدًا ۗ سُبْحَٰنَهُۥ ۖ هُوَ ٱلْغَنِىُّ ۖ لَهُۥ مَا فِى ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَمَا فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ ۚ إِنْ عِندَكُم مِّن سُلْطَٰنٍۭ بِهَٰذَآ ۚ أَتَقُولُونَ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ
2:117; 4:172; 9:31; 17:112; 18:5, 6.
یعنی مسلمان۔
2:117; 4:172; 9:31; 17:112; 18:5, 6.
(a) God is immune to the laws of decay and death and therefore requires no son to continue His work. (b) Being Self-Sufficient He needs no son to help Him in conducting the affairs of the universe. (c) The doctrine is based on no sound ground and does not go beyond mere idle philosophical surmises and conjectures. This is the significance of this verse.
2:117; 4:172; 9:31; 17:112; 18:5, 6.
Commentary:
In v. 67, it had been hinted that in the false doctrines of disbelievers lie hidden the seeds of their destruction. In the present verse, the Quran proceeds to refute the doctrine of the plurality of gods, the most heinous of all false beliefs, and of the various forms of this doctrine it selects the belief that God has a son. This doctrine differs from other known polytheistic dogmas in that, whereas in other forms of shirk, idolaters claim only that they can attain nearness to God through the instrumentality of their gods, by this doctrine a person is believed to be an actual partner in Godhead.
Four arguments have been given here in refutation of the doctrine that a person can be a Son of God. The first is contained in the words, Holy is He, which mean that God is free from all defects and imperfections. But the belief that God has a son presupposes the presence of carnal passions in Him as well as His being subject to the laws of decay and death, for only such beings or things are perpetuated in their progeny as are subject to decay and death. The earth, the sun and the moon, for instance, have no issue because they are above the familiar law of death and decay; but animals and plants wither and die. Therefore they produce their substitutes which take their place when they are gone. Thus the existence of the progeny of a thing presupposes its mortality.
The second argument is embodied in the words, He is Self-Sufficient, which mean that in His work of running the universe God does not need anybody’s help. Progeny, besides saving a person from extinction, helps him to carry on his work. But God being Self-Sufficient needs no helper in that respect either.
The third argument is contained in the sentence, To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. Sometimes one can make or originate a thing but lacks the power or ability to keep it in his possession or under his control and therefore needs assistance. But God does not need anybody’s help to keep the universe in His possession or under His control.
The fourth argument is implied in the expression, You have no authority for this, which signifies that the doctrine of the plurality of gods is based on no sound or solid ground. Its whole basis lies in the fancy and caprice of men. This fact alone constitutes an argument against this foolish doctrine. All efforts to find some real evidence in support of shirk, do not go beyond mere indulgence in idle philosophical discussion, and no real basis has so far been found for it.
The argument embodied in the words, Do you say against Allah what you know not?, is given in 13:34, in the words, Would you inform Him of what He does not know in the earth? The difference in the wording is due to the fact that in the verse under comment it is pointed out that shirk springs from the ignorance of man and is not based on any sound reasoning, while in 13:34 it is said that the doctrine of shirk involves the charge of ignorance on the part of God, for it means that He failed to know and make known the existence of gods and it was left to idolaters to disclose the godhead of their deities by the force of their own knowledge.
g
2:117; 4:172; 9:31; 17:112; 18:5, 6.
1
یعنی مسلمان۔
a
2:117; 4:172; 9:31; 17:112; 18:5, 6.
1344
Commentary:
In v. 67, it had been hinted that in the false doctrines of disbelievers lie hidden the seeds of their destruction. In the present verse, the Quran proceeds to refute the doctrine of the plurality of gods, the most heinous of all false beliefs, and of the various forms of this doctrine it selects the belief that God has a son. This doctrine differs from other known polytheistic dogmas in that, whereas in other forms of shirk, idolaters claim only that they can attain nearness to God through the instrumentality of their gods, by this doctrine a person is believed to be an actual partner in Godhead.
Four arguments have been given here in refutation of the doctrine that a person can be a Son of God. The first is contained in the words, Holy is He, which mean that God is free from all defects and imperfections. But the belief that God has a son presupposes the presence of carnal passions in Him as well as His being subject to the laws of decay and death, for only such beings or things are perpetuated in their progeny as are subject to decay and death. The earth, the sun and the moon, for instance, have no issue because they are above the familiar law of death and decay; but animals and plants wither and die. Therefore they produce their substitutes which take their place when they are gone. Thus the existence of the progeny of a thing presupposes its mortality.
The second argument is embodied in the words, He is Self-Sufficient, which mean that in His work of running the universe God does not need anybody’s help. Progeny, besides saving a person from extinction, helps him to carry on his work. But God being Self-Sufficient needs no helper in that respect either.
The third argument is contained in the sentence, To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. Sometimes one can make or originate a thing but lacks the power or ability to keep it in his possession or under his control and therefore needs assistance. But God does not need anybody’s help to keep the universe in His possession or under His control.
The fourth argument is implied in the expression, You have no authority for this, which signifies that the doctrine of the plurality of gods is based on no sound or solid ground. Its whole basis lies in the fancy and caprice of men. This fact alone constitutes an argument against this foolish doctrine. All efforts to find some real evidence in support of shirk, do not go beyond mere indulgence in idle philosophical discussion, and no real basis has so far been found for it.
The argument embodied in the words, Do you say against Allah what you know not?, is given in 13:34, in the words, Would you inform Him of what He does not know in the earth? The difference in the wording is due to the fact that in the verse under comment it is pointed out that shirk springs from the ignorance of man and is not based on any sound reasoning, while in 13:34 it is said that the doctrine of shirk involves the charge of ignorance on the part of God, for it means that He failed to know and make known the existence of gods and it was left to idolaters to disclose the godhead of their deities by the force of their own knowledge.
a
2:117; 4:172; 9:31; 17:112; 18:5, 6.
1277
(a) God is immune to the laws of decay and death and therefore requires no son to continue His work. (b) Being Self-Sufficient He needs no son to help Him in conducting the affairs of the universe. (c) The doctrine is based on no sound ground and does not go beyond mere idle philosophical surmises and conjectures. This is the significance of this verse.
أَمْ تَأْمُرُهُمْ أَحْلَٰمُهُم بِهَٰذَآ ۚ أَمْ هُمْ قَوْمٌ طَاغُونَ
Is it their reason that has misled them, or have they thrown all restraint and moderation to the winds, and in rejecting the Divine Message have transgressed all legitimate bounds?
Commentary:
The words of the verse seem to have been spoken ironically. Even after seeing that the Holy Prophet has given a teaching which has brought about such a wonderful revolution among his people and that his mission is meeting with rapid and progressive success, does the disbelievers’ intellect lead them to the conclusion that he is a poet, a soothsayer or a madman? Is it their reason that has misled them or have they thrown all restraint and moderation to the winds, and in rejecting the Divine Message have transgressed all legitimate bounds?
3951
Commentary:
The words of the verse seem to have been spoken ironically. Even after seeing that the Holy Prophet has given a teaching which has brought about such a wonderful revolution among his people and that his mission is meeting with rapid and progressive success, does the disbelievers’ intellect lead them to the conclusion that he is a poet, a soothsayer or a madman? Is it their reason that has misled them or have they thrown all restraint and moderation to the winds, and in rejecting the Divine Message have transgressed all legitimate bounds?
2859
Is it their reason that has misled them, or have they thrown all restraint and moderation to the winds, and in rejecting the Divine Message have transgressed all legitimate bounds?