Қуръони Карим маъноларининг таржимаси - Инглизча таржима - д. Валид Блейҳеш Умарий - таржима жараёни давом этмоқда. * - Таржималар мундарижаси
فَكُلِي وَٱشۡرَبِي وَقَرِّي عَيۡنٗاۖ فَإِمَّا تَرَيِنَّ مِنَ ٱلۡبَشَرِ أَحَدٗا فَقُولِيٓ إِنِّي نَذَرۡتُ لِلرَّحۡمَٰنِ صَوۡمٗا فَلَنۡ أُكَلِّمَ ٱلۡيَوۡمَ إِنسِيّٗا
(26) “So eat, drink and let your eye be soothed;[42] and whoever you see of people, say to [them]: “I have vowed a fast[43] to the Most-Merciful. I shall not talk to a soul this day!”
[42] To comfort her and reassure her of His support, thus empowering her to face the world, God Almighty granted her two tangible miracles: He caused a rivulet to flow beneath her and made the dates grow and ripen on the palm tree. al-Shinqīṭī explains: “What is understood from the context of the Qur’an is that Allah miraculously caused the dates to grow for her, and likewise, He caused the river to flow for her as a supernatural event. Neither the dates nor the river existed before, whether we say the trunk was dry or the palm tree was barren, as some exegetes suggest. Allah caused fruit to grow on it and made it ripe. The context supports this because Allah’s words, ‘So eat, drink, and let your eye be soothed,’ indicate that her comfort at that moment came from these miraculous occurrences. These miracles proved her innocence from the accusations. Mere food and drink would not have comforted her while the accusations, for which she had wished for death and to be forgotten, still loomed over her.”
[43] That is, a vow to withhold from talking (cf. al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Kathīr, al-Sa‘dī).
[43] That is, a vow to withhold from talking (cf. al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Kathīr, al-Sa‘dī).
Арабча тафсирлар:
فَأَتَتۡ بِهِۦ قَوۡمَهَا تَحۡمِلُهُۥۖ قَالُواْ يَٰمَرۡيَمُ لَقَدۡ جِئۡتِ شَيۡـٔٗا فَرِيّٗا
(27) She brought him to her people, carrying him.[44] They said: “You have indeed come up with something horrendous!”[45]
[44] That is, she came forward, openly declaring him without concealing anything, for she knew that God would exonerate her from the accusations made against someone in her situation (Cf. al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurṭubī, al-Sa‘dī).
Ibn ‘Āshūr notes that the phrases “she brought him” and “carrying him” may seem repetitive, but they are not mutually exclusive. This repetition is intentional to dispel the justified yet incorrect assumption that the child was not only miraculously made to speak but also made to walk. By emphasizing both actions, the narrative clarifies that while he was carried, the miracle was in his speech rather than in his walking.
[45] Fariyyan, is an astonishing and objectionable injustice. The root of the word fari indicates the severing of something, as if it breaks the norm or stands out by being extraordinary and rare (cf. Ibn Qutaybah, Gharīb al-Qur’ān; al-Sijistānī, Gharīb al-Qur’ān; Ibn Fāris, Maqāyīs al-Lughah). al-Shinqīṭī opines: “They mean by it fornication, because a child born of fornication is like something falsely fabricated (muftarā), as the fornicator claims the child’s paternity to someone who is not the father”: “˹And˺ Because of their Denial, their grossly vile slander against Maryam” (4: 156).
Ibn ‘Āshūr notes that the phrases “she brought him” and “carrying him” may seem repetitive, but they are not mutually exclusive. This repetition is intentional to dispel the justified yet incorrect assumption that the child was not only miraculously made to speak but also made to walk. By emphasizing both actions, the narrative clarifies that while he was carried, the miracle was in his speech rather than in his walking.
[45] Fariyyan, is an astonishing and objectionable injustice. The root of the word fari indicates the severing of something, as if it breaks the norm or stands out by being extraordinary and rare (cf. Ibn Qutaybah, Gharīb al-Qur’ān; al-Sijistānī, Gharīb al-Qur’ān; Ibn Fāris, Maqāyīs al-Lughah). al-Shinqīṭī opines: “They mean by it fornication, because a child born of fornication is like something falsely fabricated (muftarā), as the fornicator claims the child’s paternity to someone who is not the father”: “˹And˺ Because of their Denial, their grossly vile slander against Maryam” (4: 156).
Арабча тафсирлар:
يَٰٓأُخۡتَ هَٰرُونَ مَا كَانَ أَبُوكِ ٱمۡرَأَ سَوۡءٖ وَمَا كَانَتۡ أُمُّكِ بَغِيّٗا
(28) “O, sister of HĀrŪn (Aaron),[46] your father was never a man up to no good, and your mother was never unchaste!”[47]
[46] al-Mughqīrah Ibn Shu‘bah (رضي الله عنه) reported: “When I arrived in Najran, they asked me, saying: “You [Muslims] recite [the aya], “O, sister of Hārūn,” but Moses was long before Jesus by many years.” When I returned to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), I asked him about this, and he said: “They [i.e., the Jews] used to name their people after the Prophets and the righteous who came before them”” (Muslim: 2135).
They meant, that she was his “sister” in terms of chastity (cf. al-Wāḥidī, al-Wasīṭ).
[47] al-Ras‘anī explains why they made mention of the moral uprightness of her parents: “First, their intent might be to express astonishment at her involvement in immorality—as they assumed—despite her pure lineage and noble upbringing. Second, it could be to increase the severity of their reproach and emphasize their condemnation of her for committing a sin that neither her mother nor her father were known for. For if someone acts in line with their ancestry, they are not blamed; as the saying goes, “Whoever resembles their father has not wronged [the apple does not fall far from the tree].””
They meant, that she was his “sister” in terms of chastity (cf. al-Wāḥidī, al-Wasīṭ).
[47] al-Ras‘anī explains why they made mention of the moral uprightness of her parents: “First, their intent might be to express astonishment at her involvement in immorality—as they assumed—despite her pure lineage and noble upbringing. Second, it could be to increase the severity of their reproach and emphasize their condemnation of her for committing a sin that neither her mother nor her father were known for. For if someone acts in line with their ancestry, they are not blamed; as the saying goes, “Whoever resembles their father has not wronged [the apple does not fall far from the tree].””
Арабча тафсирлар:
فَأَشَارَتۡ إِلَيۡهِۖ قَالُواْ كَيۡفَ نُكَلِّمُ مَن كَانَ فِي ٱلۡمَهۡدِ صَبِيّٗا
Арабча тафсирлар:
قَالَ إِنِّي عَبۡدُ ٱللَّهِ ءَاتَىٰنِيَ ٱلۡكِتَٰبَ وَجَعَلَنِي نَبِيّٗا
[48] Exegetes have reflected deeply on why these were the first words he uttered, especially when the accusation against his mother was at the forefront of everyone’s minds. They suggest that his choice of words was deliberate, addressing the most pressing concern—the defense of his mother’s innocence—while also establishing his own merely Prophetic mission from the very start. It serves both to refute the claim that God Almighty has begotten a son (cf. al-Rāzī) and to deny the accusation that his mother bore him out of wedlock. Being a Prophet, the highest station that a human can attain, he could not have been born to a mother of immoral character (cf. Abī Ḥayyān).
[49] This means that God had decreed he would become a Prophet and be given the Evangel (cf. al-Qurṭubī, al-Shawkānī, al-Sa‘dī). The Qur’an frequently uses the past tense to describe future events that are certain to occur, emphasizing their inevitability (cf. al-Shinqīṭī).
[49] This means that God had decreed he would become a Prophet and be given the Evangel (cf. al-Qurṭubī, al-Shawkānī, al-Sa‘dī). The Qur’an frequently uses the past tense to describe future events that are certain to occur, emphasizing their inevitability (cf. al-Shinqīṭī).
Арабча тафсирлар:
وَجَعَلَنِي مُبَارَكًا أَيۡنَ مَا كُنتُ وَأَوۡصَٰنِي بِٱلصَّلَوٰةِ وَٱلزَّكَوٰةِ مَا دُمۡتُ حَيّٗا
(31) “He also made me blessed wherever I might be[50] and enjoined me to [perform] Prayer and zakat as long as I live”.[51]
[50] That is, God Almighty made him blessed, abundant in goodness, and part of that is that he is made beneficial to creation, teaching goodness wherever and whenever he may be (cf. al-Baghawī, Ibn Kathīr, al-Sa‘dī). Ibn ‘Āshūr says: “This is because God sent him as a mercy to the Children of Israel, to make lawful for them some of what had been forbidden, and to call them to noble morals after their hearts had hardened and they had altered their religion. This is the greatest blessing that accompanied him. Among his blessings is that God made his presence in a place, which was a cause for the goodness of the people of that area, bringing fertility to the land, guiding its people, and granting them success in doing good.”
[51] Zakat (lit. purity) can be understood in two ways in the context of Jesus (عليه السلام). Ibn Kathīr clarifies: “Zakat has two possible meanings: the first refers to the zakat of wealth, which entails the act of giving, while the second refers to the purification of the body from the stains of sin.” Those who favoured the latter interpretation point to the case of Jesus, who was known for not accumulating wealth, which is a prerequisite for zakat. Therefore, it is more likely to indicate purification in this context, unless zakat is understood strictly as alms-giving (cf. al-Ṭabarī).
[51] Zakat (lit. purity) can be understood in two ways in the context of Jesus (عليه السلام). Ibn Kathīr clarifies: “Zakat has two possible meanings: the first refers to the zakat of wealth, which entails the act of giving, while the second refers to the purification of the body from the stains of sin.” Those who favoured the latter interpretation point to the case of Jesus, who was known for not accumulating wealth, which is a prerequisite for zakat. Therefore, it is more likely to indicate purification in this context, unless zakat is understood strictly as alms-giving (cf. al-Ṭabarī).
Арабча тафсирлар:
وَبَرَّۢا بِوَٰلِدَتِي وَلَمۡ يَجۡعَلۡنِي جَبَّارٗا شَقِيّٗا
Арабча тафсирлар:
وَٱلسَّلَٰمُ عَلَيَّ يَوۡمَ وُلِدتُّ وَيَوۡمَ أَمُوتُ وَيَوۡمَ أُبۡعَثُ حَيّٗا
[52] These two ayas highlight the close parallels between Jesus and Yaḥyā (believed to be John the Baptist), both in terms of their lineage, their proximity in time and place, and their shared Prophetic mission. While Jesus speaks about himself, God Almighty describes Yaḥyā with similar reverence: “He was also Mindful, *and dutiful to his parents; he was not rebelliously roguish. *Peace be upon him; the day he was born, the day he dies, and the day he is resurrected alive.” The comparison underscores their connection in both character and purpose as Prophets.
Both Prophets played pivotal roles in guiding the Children of Israel back to moral and spiritual righteousness during a time of great upheaval. Their shared virtues of Mindfulness, obedience, humility, and their uncompromising dedication to God’s Will, set them apart as exemplars of Prophetic conduct. Their missions were marked by Divine blessings, peace, and favour.
Yaḥyā’s extraordinary birth played a significant role in preparing the people to believe in the even more miraculous birth of Jesus. Just as Yaḥyā’s birth to elderly, barren parents was seen as a sign of Divine intervention, it helped pave the way for accepting the miraculous birth of Jesus, born to Mary without a father. Both events were manifestations of God’s Power, meant to strengthen the faith of the people and prepare them for the extraordinary events that would unfold.
Likewise, Yaḥyā’s mission served as a spiritual and moral preparation for the arrival of Jesus. As a Prophet, Yaḥyā called the Children of Israel to repentance and reform, urging them to return to righteousness after their community had fallen into moral decay. His message of purification, repentance, and renewal laid the groundwork for Jesus’s mission, which expanded on these themes, offering not only moral reform but also a message of Divine Mercy and salvation.
In this way, Yaḥyā’s role as a forerunner was both practical and spiritual. His life and mission established a context in which the people could understand and embrace the message brought by Jesus. By addressing their moral state and calling them back to the principles of their faith, Yaḥyā prepared the people spiritually to receive the teachings of Jesus, marking him as a key figure in the unfolding plan.
Both Prophets played pivotal roles in guiding the Children of Israel back to moral and spiritual righteousness during a time of great upheaval. Their shared virtues of Mindfulness, obedience, humility, and their uncompromising dedication to God’s Will, set them apart as exemplars of Prophetic conduct. Their missions were marked by Divine blessings, peace, and favour.
Yaḥyā’s extraordinary birth played a significant role in preparing the people to believe in the even more miraculous birth of Jesus. Just as Yaḥyā’s birth to elderly, barren parents was seen as a sign of Divine intervention, it helped pave the way for accepting the miraculous birth of Jesus, born to Mary without a father. Both events were manifestations of God’s Power, meant to strengthen the faith of the people and prepare them for the extraordinary events that would unfold.
Likewise, Yaḥyā’s mission served as a spiritual and moral preparation for the arrival of Jesus. As a Prophet, Yaḥyā called the Children of Israel to repentance and reform, urging them to return to righteousness after their community had fallen into moral decay. His message of purification, repentance, and renewal laid the groundwork for Jesus’s mission, which expanded on these themes, offering not only moral reform but also a message of Divine Mercy and salvation.
In this way, Yaḥyā’s role as a forerunner was both practical and spiritual. His life and mission established a context in which the people could understand and embrace the message brought by Jesus. By addressing their moral state and calling them back to the principles of their faith, Yaḥyā prepared the people spiritually to receive the teachings of Jesus, marking him as a key figure in the unfolding plan.
Арабча тафсирлар:
ذَٰلِكَ عِيسَى ٱبۡنُ مَرۡيَمَۖ قَوۡلَ ٱلۡحَقِّ ٱلَّذِي فِيهِ يَمۡتَرُونَ
(34) That is ‘IsĀ son of Maryam (Jesus son of Mary), the speech of truth,[53] about whom they diverge.[54]
[53] Qawl al-ḥaqq (lit. the speech of the truth) represents two equally valid syntactical interpretations and thus two such meanings. One interpretation is that it serves as an emphatic verbal noun (maṣdar mu’akkid) reinforcing the meaning of the sentence. In this case, it would be an absolute object (maf‘ūl muṭlaq) of an implied verb, such as “I speak the speech of truth,” where “truth” is described through a genitive construction (iḍāfah), meaning “the true word,” similar to saying, “he is truly a servant of God.” Here, ḥaqq emphasizes truth as opposed to falsehood. Under this interpretation, the phrase is seen as an interjected clause between the descriptor and the thing being described, meaning, “That is Jesus, the son of Mary, about whom they diverge.”
The second interpretation is that it is an object of praise (manṣūb ‘alā al-madh), referring to Jesus as the “speech of truth” if qawl al-Ḥaqq is taken to mean “the word of God.” This parallels Jesus being referred to as “the word” (kalimah) since his creation was through God’s command (cf. al-Zamakhsharī, al-Wāḥidī, al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn): “When the angels said: “Maryam, Allah gives you the good news of a word from Him; his name is the Messiah, ‘Ôsā, son of Maryam; honourable in the worldly life and the Hereafter, and among those drawn near”. *“He talks to people while in the cradle, and as a grown man; and he is one of the righteous” (3: 45-46).
[54] What preceded is the declaration of the truth regarding who Jesus truly was. It presents a balanced perspective: he is neither a son of adultery, as some Jews claimed, nor is he God or the son of God, as some Christians believe (cf. al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurṭubī, Ibn Kathīr). Instead, Islam presents Jesus as an honourable Prophet, who was born miraculously to a pure and virtuous mother, but ultimately human and fully dedicated to fulfilling God’s Will. This balanced view reinforces the Islamic principle of monotheism, which is further emphasized in the next aya.
The second interpretation is that it is an object of praise (manṣūb ‘alā al-madh), referring to Jesus as the “speech of truth” if qawl al-Ḥaqq is taken to mean “the word of God.” This parallels Jesus being referred to as “the word” (kalimah) since his creation was through God’s command (cf. al-Zamakhsharī, al-Wāḥidī, al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn): “When the angels said: “Maryam, Allah gives you the good news of a word from Him; his name is the Messiah, ‘Ôsā, son of Maryam; honourable in the worldly life and the Hereafter, and among those drawn near”. *“He talks to people while in the cradle, and as a grown man; and he is one of the righteous” (3: 45-46).
[54] What preceded is the declaration of the truth regarding who Jesus truly was. It presents a balanced perspective: he is neither a son of adultery, as some Jews claimed, nor is he God or the son of God, as some Christians believe (cf. al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurṭubī, Ibn Kathīr). Instead, Islam presents Jesus as an honourable Prophet, who was born miraculously to a pure and virtuous mother, but ultimately human and fully dedicated to fulfilling God’s Will. This balanced view reinforces the Islamic principle of monotheism, which is further emphasized in the next aya.
Арабча тафсирлар:
مَا كَانَ لِلَّهِ أَن يَتَّخِذَ مِن وَلَدٖۖ سُبۡحَٰنَهُۥٓۚ إِذَا قَضَىٰٓ أَمۡرٗا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُۥ كُن فَيَكُونُ
(35) Allah would never take a child! Glorified be He; whenever He decrees a matter, He only says to it, “Be!” and it is![55]
[55] Just as Jesus, son of Mary, was created by the word (Be), he was brought into existence without a father (cf. al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Kathīr, al-Sa‘dī): “Indeed the example of ‘Ôsā with Allah is like that of Adam; He created him from dust and said: “Be!” and he was”.”
Арабча тафсирлар:
وَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ رَبِّي وَرَبُّكُمۡ فَٱعۡبُدُوهُۚ هَٰذَا صِرَٰطٞ مُّسۡتَقِيمٞ
[56] These are the words of Jesus (عليه السلام) while in the cradle (cf. al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Juzayy, al-Sa‘dī), emphasizing his monotheistic message and calling for the worship of Allah alone as the only rightful way. This is the al-Sirāṭ al-Mustaqīm: a straight path, free of any crookedness. Whoever follows it is rightly guided, and whoever deviates from it is led astray and lost (cf. Ibn Kathīr, Ibn ‘Āshūr).
Арабча тафсирлар:
فَٱخۡتَلَفَ ٱلۡأَحۡزَابُ مِنۢ بَيۡنِهِمۡۖ فَوَيۡلٞ لِّلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِن مَّشۡهَدِ يَوۡمٍ عَظِيمٍ
(37) Then the confederates[57] indeed differed among themselves; woe betide those who Denied the witnessing[58] of a Great Day.[59]
[57] al-Aḥzāb (lit. the confederates) are those who banded together or confederated (taḥazzabū) (cf. al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurṭubī). Many exegetes say that these groups that “banded together” are the Jews on one hand and the Christians on the other (cf. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah, Ibn Kathīr, al-Shawkānī, al-Sa‘dī, al-Shinqīṭī). However, al-Wāḥidī and Ibn ‘Āshūr hold the view that these confederates were exclusively Christian sects.
The three major Christian sects during the early centuries were the Melkites, Jacobites, and Nestorians, each with distinct Christological views. The Melkites aligned with the Byzantine Empire and accepted the Council of Chalcedon (451 CE), which taught that Christ had two natures, divine and human, united in one person. The Jacobites (Syriac Orthodox Church) followed Jacob Baradaeus and embraced Miaphysitism, believing Christ had one united divine-human nature, rejecting Chalcedonian definitions. The Nestorians, followers of Nestorius, held that Christ had two separate natures—divine and human—and their teachings were condemned at the Council of Ephesus (431 CE), leading to the formation of the Church of the East.
[58] Mashhad means “witnessing,” and shahāda refers to being present with observation, either by sight or insight. The root of the word (shahida) denotes presence, knowledge, and informing (cf. al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Fāris, Maqāyīs al-Lughah, al-Iṣfahānī al-Mufradāt).
[59] Woe befalls the deniers who hold a false belief about Jesus, and to other disbelievers as well, for denying their presence and witnessing on the Day of Resurrection, a day filled with hardships and terrors, encompassing the recompense for their deeds and what they will face of torment and punishment (cf. al-Wāḥidī, Ibn Kathīr, al-Sa‘dī, al-Shinqīṭī).
The three major Christian sects during the early centuries were the Melkites, Jacobites, and Nestorians, each with distinct Christological views. The Melkites aligned with the Byzantine Empire and accepted the Council of Chalcedon (451 CE), which taught that Christ had two natures, divine and human, united in one person. The Jacobites (Syriac Orthodox Church) followed Jacob Baradaeus and embraced Miaphysitism, believing Christ had one united divine-human nature, rejecting Chalcedonian definitions. The Nestorians, followers of Nestorius, held that Christ had two separate natures—divine and human—and their teachings were condemned at the Council of Ephesus (431 CE), leading to the formation of the Church of the East.
[58] Mashhad means “witnessing,” and shahāda refers to being present with observation, either by sight or insight. The root of the word (shahida) denotes presence, knowledge, and informing (cf. al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Fāris, Maqāyīs al-Lughah, al-Iṣfahānī al-Mufradāt).
[59] Woe befalls the deniers who hold a false belief about Jesus, and to other disbelievers as well, for denying their presence and witnessing on the Day of Resurrection, a day filled with hardships and terrors, encompassing the recompense for their deeds and what they will face of torment and punishment (cf. al-Wāḥidī, Ibn Kathīr, al-Sa‘dī, al-Shinqīṭī).
Арабча тафсирлар:
أَسۡمِعۡ بِهِمۡ وَأَبۡصِرۡ يَوۡمَ يَأۡتُونَنَا لَٰكِنِ ٱلظَّٰلِمُونَ ٱلۡيَوۡمَ فِي ضَلَٰلٖ مُّبِينٖ
(38) How [clearly] hearing and how [clearly] seeing they are when they come to Us, but the Deniers are [today] in manifest error.[60]
[60] However, the Deniers who wronged themselves by lying and fabricating against God are, in this life, in clear misguidance from the truth. They neither hear it, see it, nor comprehend it (cf. al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Kathīr, al-Shawkānī).
Арабча тафсирлар:
Қуръони Карим маъноларининг таржимаси - Инглизча таржима - д. Валид Блейҳеш Умарий - таржима жараёни давом этмоқда. - Таржималар мундарижаси
Таржима - д. Валид Блейҳеш Умарий.