ការបកប្រែអត្ថន័យគួរអាន - ការបកប្រែជាភាសាអង់គ្លេស - បណ្ឌិត វ៉ាលីទព្លីហាស្ហ អូម៉ើរី - កំពុងដំណើរការលើវា * - សន្ទស្សន៍នៃការបកប្រែ
ការបកប្រែអត្ថន័យ
អាយ៉ាត់: (133) ជំពូក: តហា
وَقَالُواْ لَوۡلَا يَأۡتِينَا بِـَٔايَةٖ مِّن رَّبِّهِۦٓۚ أَوَلَمۡ تَأۡتِهِم بَيِّنَةُ مَا فِي ٱلصُّحُفِ ٱلۡأُولَىٰ
﴾133﴿ [252]And they ˹the Deniers˺ say: “If only he would bring us a Sign from his Lord!” Has there not come to them a clear exposition of what was ˹already˺ in the former Scrolls?[253]
[252] This is yet another example of the egregious and repeated claims voiced by the Makkan Associators—claims which the Noble Messenger (ﷺ) was Divinely instructed to bear with patience. As Ibn ʿĀshūr observes, such statements were not rooted in any sincere pursuit of truth, but were rather manifestations of wilful obstinacy and entrenched Denial. In this aya, and the one that follows—both forming the closing remarks of the sura—the Messenger (ﷺ) is fortified with decisive and compelling responses, affirming that his Lord is indeed with him, supporting and vindicating him in the face of rejection.
[253] That is, in the Qur’an which elucidates for them what the Scriptures of the former Prophets contained (cf. al-Ṭabarī, al-Bayḍāwī, al-Saʿdī, al-Shinqīṭī): “Indeed, this Qur’an relates to the Children of Israel most of that over which they differ.” (27: 76)
al-Qurṭubī explains: “˹That is,˺ the Torah, the Gospel, and the ancient Scriptures. This is among the greatest of Signs—for he ˹the Prophet (ﷺ)˺ has informed them of what they contained!” To confront the long-established theological narratives of the People of the Book—affirming some elements, correcting others, and altogether rejecting those that had been altered—was an extraordinary act. As al-Rāzī notes, such a move would have been intellectually perilous and historically implausible had the Prophet (ﷺ) not been certain that what he brought was revelation from the very same God Who had revealed the earlier Scriptures, and Who alone knew their original, uncorrupted content.
Ibn Taymiyyah (Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Jawāb al-Ṣaḥīḥ liman Baddala Dīn al-Masīḥ, passim, esp. in his comparison of Qur’anic and Biblical narratives) likewise underscores this as a manifest sign of Prophethood: that the Qur’an speaks with confident authority about matters known only to those deeply versed in the scriptures of old, and yet its account aligns with what remains of the unaltered truths within those traditions—while correcting their errors without hesitation. al-Shinqīṭī, drawing from this same framework, regards the Qur’an’s disclosure of hidden truths within the previous revelations as a decisive proof, especially given the Prophet’s illiteracy and absence of formal instruction.
Indeed, this confident engagement with Judeo-Christian scripture serves as a powerful sign of the Prophet’s truthfulness. No historical record indicates that the Jewish scholars of Madinah—despite being in close contact with the Makkan Associators and well-versed in their textual heritage—publicly challenged the Qur’anic account on these points. As for the Christians of Najran, their encounter with the Prophet (ﷺ), as recorded in Sūrat Āl ʿImrān, resulted not in a theological refutation, but in evasive argument and eventual retreat, testifying to their doctrinal confusion and their inability to counter the Qur’an’s narrative force.
In this very sura, the Qur’an offers profound clarification of what is contained in the former Scrolls. Two major narratives are recounted here: the stories of Moses (عليه السلام) and Adam (عليهما السلام). Both are found prominently in the Hebrew Bible—Moses (عليه السلام) in Exodus and Adam (عليه السلام) in Genesis—yet the Qur’anic retellings here do more than echo them; they correct, refine, and reaffirm the unaltered truth that had been lost or distorted over time.
These two episodes—those of Adam (عليه السلام) and Moses (عليه السلام)—carry profound significance in later theological discussions, particularly in how the Qur’an reorients narratives that had long shaped Jewish and Christian thought.
The story of Adam (عليه السلام), as presented in this sura (ayas: 120–121), corrects a deeply entrenched notion found in Genesis—namely, that Eve alone bore the guilt for humanity’s Fall, having been deceived by the serpent and then drawing Adam (عليه السلام) into sin. This reading has historically underpinned a wide range of misogynistic doctrines in post-biblical theology, particularly in parts of Christian tradition, where Eve’s transgression was viewed as the origin of female inferiority and spiritual liability. The Qur’an decisively breaks with this narrative: it attributes the temptation directly to Satan, presents Adam (عليه السلام) and his spouse as equally deceived, equally responsible, and ultimately equally repentant. This restores moral symmetry and human dignity to both parties and lays the groundwork for a theology of personal accountability, not inherited guilt.
The story of Moses (عليه السلام), especially in ayas 84–97, likewise reshapes a foundational episode from the Israelite tradition—the sin of the golden calf. In Exodus (32: 2–4), Aaron (عليه السلام) is portrayed as the one who gathered the people’s gold and fashioned the idol, thus bearing direct responsibility for a grave act of apostasy. The Qur’an challenges this depiction by introducing al-Sāmirī as the true instigator, while Aaron (عليه السلام) is shown to have opposed the idolatry, warned the people, and feared internal division (ayas: 90–94). This is a significant theological intervention: it vindicates Aaron’s Prophetic integrity, reaffirms the sanctity of the Prophetic office, and prevents the conflation of political weakness with doctrinal betrayal. Later Muslim scholars, including al-Rāzī and al-Shinqīṭī, regard this correction not merely as historical, but as doctrinally necessary to preserve the infallibility (ʿiṣmah) of the Prophets, especially in matters of Faith, and their unwavering commitment to tawḥīd.
These examples reveal the Qur’an’s distinctive role—not merely as a parallel Scripture, but as a guardian over previous revelation, separating truth from embellishment, correcting error, and restoring the Prophetic legacy to its Divinely intended clarity: “And We sent down to you ˹Muhammad˺ the Book with the Truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Book and a ˹supreme˺ authority over it. Judge then between them with what Allah sent down and do not follow their desires over the Truth that came to you.” (5: 48)
[253] That is, in the Qur’an which elucidates for them what the Scriptures of the former Prophets contained (cf. al-Ṭabarī, al-Bayḍāwī, al-Saʿdī, al-Shinqīṭī): “Indeed, this Qur’an relates to the Children of Israel most of that over which they differ.” (27: 76)
al-Qurṭubī explains: “˹That is,˺ the Torah, the Gospel, and the ancient Scriptures. This is among the greatest of Signs—for he ˹the Prophet (ﷺ)˺ has informed them of what they contained!” To confront the long-established theological narratives of the People of the Book—affirming some elements, correcting others, and altogether rejecting those that had been altered—was an extraordinary act. As al-Rāzī notes, such a move would have been intellectually perilous and historically implausible had the Prophet (ﷺ) not been certain that what he brought was revelation from the very same God Who had revealed the earlier Scriptures, and Who alone knew their original, uncorrupted content.
Ibn Taymiyyah (Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Jawāb al-Ṣaḥīḥ liman Baddala Dīn al-Masīḥ, passim, esp. in his comparison of Qur’anic and Biblical narratives) likewise underscores this as a manifest sign of Prophethood: that the Qur’an speaks with confident authority about matters known only to those deeply versed in the scriptures of old, and yet its account aligns with what remains of the unaltered truths within those traditions—while correcting their errors without hesitation. al-Shinqīṭī, drawing from this same framework, regards the Qur’an’s disclosure of hidden truths within the previous revelations as a decisive proof, especially given the Prophet’s illiteracy and absence of formal instruction.
Indeed, this confident engagement with Judeo-Christian scripture serves as a powerful sign of the Prophet’s truthfulness. No historical record indicates that the Jewish scholars of Madinah—despite being in close contact with the Makkan Associators and well-versed in their textual heritage—publicly challenged the Qur’anic account on these points. As for the Christians of Najran, their encounter with the Prophet (ﷺ), as recorded in Sūrat Āl ʿImrān, resulted not in a theological refutation, but in evasive argument and eventual retreat, testifying to their doctrinal confusion and their inability to counter the Qur’an’s narrative force.
In this very sura, the Qur’an offers profound clarification of what is contained in the former Scrolls. Two major narratives are recounted here: the stories of Moses (عليه السلام) and Adam (عليهما السلام). Both are found prominently in the Hebrew Bible—Moses (عليه السلام) in Exodus and Adam (عليه السلام) in Genesis—yet the Qur’anic retellings here do more than echo them; they correct, refine, and reaffirm the unaltered truth that had been lost or distorted over time.
These two episodes—those of Adam (عليه السلام) and Moses (عليه السلام)—carry profound significance in later theological discussions, particularly in how the Qur’an reorients narratives that had long shaped Jewish and Christian thought.
The story of Adam (عليه السلام), as presented in this sura (ayas: 120–121), corrects a deeply entrenched notion found in Genesis—namely, that Eve alone bore the guilt for humanity’s Fall, having been deceived by the serpent and then drawing Adam (عليه السلام) into sin. This reading has historically underpinned a wide range of misogynistic doctrines in post-biblical theology, particularly in parts of Christian tradition, where Eve’s transgression was viewed as the origin of female inferiority and spiritual liability. The Qur’an decisively breaks with this narrative: it attributes the temptation directly to Satan, presents Adam (عليه السلام) and his spouse as equally deceived, equally responsible, and ultimately equally repentant. This restores moral symmetry and human dignity to both parties and lays the groundwork for a theology of personal accountability, not inherited guilt.
The story of Moses (عليه السلام), especially in ayas 84–97, likewise reshapes a foundational episode from the Israelite tradition—the sin of the golden calf. In Exodus (32: 2–4), Aaron (عليه السلام) is portrayed as the one who gathered the people’s gold and fashioned the idol, thus bearing direct responsibility for a grave act of apostasy. The Qur’an challenges this depiction by introducing al-Sāmirī as the true instigator, while Aaron (عليه السلام) is shown to have opposed the idolatry, warned the people, and feared internal division (ayas: 90–94). This is a significant theological intervention: it vindicates Aaron’s Prophetic integrity, reaffirms the sanctity of the Prophetic office, and prevents the conflation of political weakness with doctrinal betrayal. Later Muslim scholars, including al-Rāzī and al-Shinqīṭī, regard this correction not merely as historical, but as doctrinally necessary to preserve the infallibility (ʿiṣmah) of the Prophets, especially in matters of Faith, and their unwavering commitment to tawḥīd.
These examples reveal the Qur’an’s distinctive role—not merely as a parallel Scripture, but as a guardian over previous revelation, separating truth from embellishment, correcting error, and restoring the Prophetic legacy to its Divinely intended clarity: “And We sent down to you ˹Muhammad˺ the Book with the Truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Book and a ˹supreme˺ authority over it. Judge then between them with what Allah sent down and do not follow their desires over the Truth that came to you.” (5: 48)
តាហ្វសៀរជាភាសាអារ៉ាប់ជាច្រេីន:
ការបកប្រែអត្ថន័យ
អាយ៉ាត់: (133) ជំពូក: តហា
ការបកប្រែអត្ថន័យគួរអាន - ការបកប្រែជាភាសាអង់គ្លេស - បណ្ឌិត វ៉ាលីទព្លីហាស្ហ អូម៉ើរី - កំពុងដំណើរការលើវា - សន្ទស្សន៍នៃការបកប្រែ
ការបកប្រែដោយបណ្ឌិត វ៉ាលីទព្លីហាស្ហ អូម៉ើរី។