Kamar yadda muka gani, Allah ya umurci Musulmi su yi yaƙi da mutanen littattafan da suka gabata, watau Yahudawa da Nasara, "har sai sun biya jizya da hannunsu, alhalin su ƙasƙantattu ne." (Aya ta 29) Lokacin da aka bada wannan umurni, wasu yanayi da aka tattauna a Gabatarwar wannan sūrah sun shafi al'ummar Musulmi a Madina a wancan lokaci. Waɗannan yanayi sun buƙaci a maimaita wannan umurni tare da jaddada shi. Dole a bayyana dalilansa. Rashin jin daɗin da wasu Musulmi suka ji game da manufarsa yana buƙatar a ba su tabbaci. Biyayya ga wannan umurni na nufin adawa da Byzantines a kudancin Sham. Kafin zuwan Musulunci, Larabawa suna jin tsoron Byzantines, musamman saboda sun mallaki arewacin Larabawa na dogon lokaci. Wasu kabilun Larabawa sun haɗa kai da su, kuma suna da wata ƙasa ta tsana inda kabilar Ghassān ta karɓi mulki.
As we have seen, God issued His order to the Muslims to fight the people of earlier revelations, i.e. the Jews and the Christians, “till they pay the submission tax with a willing hand, after they have been humbled.” (Verse 29) When this order was given certain circumstances, discussed in the Prologue to this sūrah, affected the Muslim community in Madinah at that time. These circumstances required that this order should be reiterated and emphasized. Its reasons needed to be clarified. The uneasiness felt by some Muslims about its purpose required reassurance. To obey this order meant opposing the Byzantines in southern Syria. Before the advent of Islam, the Arabs held the Byzantines in awe, particularly because they held control over the north of Arabia for a long time. Some Arab tribes collaborated with them, and they had a puppet state where the Ghassān tribe assumed power.
Wannan ba shine karo na farko da Musulmi suka yi da Rumawa ba. Tare da Musulunci, Allah ya ba Larabawa kima da mutunci wanda ya basu damar tsayawa kyam a kan Farisawa da Rumawa. A baya, duk jarumtakar da suka nuna ta kasance ce a cikin rikice-rikicen cikin gida da kuma hare-haren kwace dukiya da suke kaiwa juna, kabila da kabila. Duk da haka, tsoron Rumawa yana nan a zuciyar wasu, musamman wadanda ba su riga sun samu halin Musulunci na gaskiya ba. Bugu da kari, karon battar da aka yi da Rumawa a baya bai kare a cikin amfanin Musulmi ba. A cikin wannan yaki, Rumawa da wadanda suke amfani da su daga Larabawa sun tara manyan rundunoni wadanda wasu rahotanni suka kiyasta cewa sun kai maza sama da dubu dari biyu.
This was not the first encounter the Muslims had with the Byzantines. With Islam, God gave the Arabs a sense of dignity which enabled them to stand up to both the Persians and the Byzantines. Formerly, all the bravery they demonstrated was in internal conflict and the looting raids they launched against one another, tribe against tribe. Yet there was still a lingering fear of the Byzantines, particularly among those who had not yet acquired the true Islamic attitude. Moreover, the last major encounter with the Byzantines had not gone in favour of the Muslims. In that battle, the Byzantines and their Arab stooges marshalled large forces which some reports put at no less than 200,000 men.
Duk waɗannan yanayi, ko dai waɗanda suka shafi tsarin al'ummar Musulmi a lokacin, ko kuma tsohuwar fargabar Ruma (Byzantines), ko kuma yakin kansa wanda aka kira "yakin wahala", da kuma yadda Ruma da Larabawan Kiristoci da suke tare da su suke bin Littattafai na farko, duk suna bukatar ƙarin bayani da kuma maganganu masu tsayayyen hujja don nuna cewa yakar su ba makawa ba ce. Dole ne a kawar da duk shakku, a kuma kwantar da hankali da tabbatarwa ta hanyar bayyana dalilan wannan abu da ba makawa.
All these circumstances, whether relating to the structure of the Muslim community at the time, or to the old fear of the Byzantines, or to the expedition itself which was termed ‘the expedition of hardship,’ and also the feeling that the Byzantines and the Christian Arabs allied with them followed earlier Scriptures required further clarification and more categorical statements to show that the fight against them was inevitable. All doubts had to be removed and unease needed to be countered with reassurance by explaining the reasons for that inescapable eventuality.
A cikin wannan ayar, Alƙur'ani ya bayyana dalilin da yasa waɗancan mutane na wahayin farko suke bin imani karkatacce wanda yayi kama da na mushrikan Larabawa, da mushrikan Romawa na dā, da sauran al'ummomi da ƙungiyoyi. Ba su riƙe imani madaidaici da aka zayyana a cikin Littafan su ba. Saboda haka ba za a iya ɗaukar su a matsayin masu bin wani saƙo daga Allah ba, tun da suna riƙe da imani sabanin dukkan saƙonnin da God ya saukar.
Abin da ya cancanci a lura da shi shi ne ambaton Yahudawa da da'awarsu cewa Ezra ɗan God ne, lokacin da waɗannan ayoyi suke nufin shirya Musulmi don fuskantar Romawa da abokan su Kiristocin Larabawa. Mafi yiwuwa akwai dalilai guda biyu na hakan:
In this verse, the Qur’ān makes it clear why those people of earlier revelations were following deviant beliefs which echoed those of the Arab idolaters, Roman idolaters of old as also other nations and communities. They had not maintained the right faith which was outlined in their Scriptures. Hence they could not be considered as followers of any divine message, since they held beliefs contrary to all messages revealed by God. What is worth noting is the mention of the Jews and their assertion that Ezra was the son of God when these verses are meant to prepare the Muslims for a confrontation with the Byzantines and their Arab Christian allies. Most probably there are two reasons for this:
Na farko ya shafi gaskiyar cewa wadannan ayoyi an bayar da su ne a matsayin magana ta gaba daya, kuma umarnin yaki da mutanen littattafan farko har sai sun biya harajin mika wuya da hannu mai yarda, sannan su kasance masu kaskanci, shi ma yana da ma'ana ta gaba daya. Saboda haka wajibi ne a fayyace tushen akida na wannan umarni na gaba daya wanda ya shafi Kiristoci da Yahudawa baki daya.
The first relates to the fact that these verses are given as a general statement, and the order to fight the people of earlier revelations until they pay the submission tax with a willing hand and are subdued is also of general import. In view of this it is necessary to outline the ideological basis of this general order that applies to both Christians and Jews.
Dalili na biyu shi ne cewa dole ne a haɗa Yahudawa cikin wannan umarni saboda suna cikin matsayin da za su iya sanya cikas don hana faɗaɗar Musulmi zuwa kudancin Siriya. Sun tashi daga Madina zuwa yankunan da ke kusa da Siriya bayan wani mummunan yaƙi da Musulmi wanda ya kai ga korar kabilun Qaynuqā` da al-Nadīr.
The second reason is that the Jews had to be included in this order because they were in a position to put up obstacles to impede the Muslim expansion into southern Syria. They had moved from Madinah to areas close to Syria after a hard fight against the Muslims which had led to the evacuation of the tribes of Qaynuqā` and al- Nadīr.
Ana yarda cewa Kiristoci suna da'awar cewa Yesu Kristi ɗan Allah ne. Wannan imani ne da aka sani sosai. Wannan ya kasance imaninsu tun lokacin da Bulus ya murɗe addinin Kirista.
A ɗaya ɓangaren kuwa, da'awar Yahudawa cewa Uzairu ɗan Allah ne ba a sani ba a yau. Abin da muke samu a yau a rubuce-rubucen addinin Yahudawa game da Uzairu shi ne bayanin da ke nuna shi a matsayin ƙwararren marubucin Attaura, kuma ya sadaukar da kansa ga neman sanin dokar Ubangiji.
Duk da haka, gaskiyar cewa Alƙur'ani ya danganta musu wannan magana, cewa Uzairu ɗan Allah ne, shaida ce da ba za a iya ƙaryata ta ba cewa aƙalla wasu daga cikinsu, musamman Yahudawan Madina, sun kasance suna yin imani da haka, kuma wannan magana ta kasance sananniya a tsakaninsu. Alƙur'ani ya fuskanci Yahudawa da Kiristoci a fili kuma a bayyane. Da an sami wani abu marar gaskiya a cikin abin da ya danganta musu, da sun samu a ciki hujja mai ƙarfi da za su yi amfani da ita wajen ƙin gaskiyar saƙon Annabi ﷺ.
The Christian claim that Jesus Christ is the son of God is well known. This has been their belief ever since Paul distorted the Christian faith. On the other hand, the claim by the Jews that Ezra was the son of God is not known today. What we find today in Jewish religious writings about Ezra is a description which shows him as a skilful scribe of the Torah and that he dedicated himself to the pursuit of knowledge of the Lord’s law. Nevertheless, the fact that the Qur’ān attributes to them this assertion that Ezra was the son of God is irrefutable evidence that at least some of them, particularly the Jews of Madinah, used to believe so and that this was commonly accepted among them. The Qur’ān faced the Jews and the Christians in an open and clear way. Had there been anything untrue in what it attributed to them, they would have found in it a valid argument to support their denial of the truth of the Prophet’s message.
Marigayi Shaikh Rashīd Riđā’ ya ba da takaitaccen bayani mai amfani game da matsayin Ezra da darajarsa kamar yadda Yahudawa suke kallonsa, sannan ya ƙara nasa sharhi. Yana da kyau a ambaci wasu daga cikin waɗannan sakin layi a nan, domin mu samu haske game da abin da Yahudawa suke imani da shi.24
The late Shaikh Rashīd Riđā’ gives a useful summary about Ezra’s position and status as viewed by the Jews and adds his own comments. It is useful to quote a few of these paragraphs here so that we have an insight into what the Jews believe.24
The Jewish Encyclopaedia (1903 edition) mentions that Ezra marks the springtime in the national history of Judaism. "The flowers appear on the earth" refers to Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra was worthy of being the vehicle of the Law, had it not been already given through Moses. It was forgotten but Ezra restored it. But for its sins, Israel in the time of Ezra would have witnessed miracles as in the time of Joshua... Ezra re-established the text of the Pentateuch, introducing therein the Assyrian or square characters, apparently as a polemical measure against the Samaritans. He showed his doubts concerning the correctness of some words of the text by placing points over them... the beginnings of the Jewish calendar are traced back to him.
The Jewish Encyclopaedia (1903 edition) mentions that Ezra marks the springtime in the national history of Judaism. “The flowers appear on the earth” refers to Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra was worthy of being the vehicle of the Law, had it not been already given through Moses. It was forgotten but Ezra restored it. But for its sins, Israel in the time of Ezra would have witnessed miracles as in the time of Joshua... Ezra re-established the text of the Pentateuch, introducing therein the Assyrian or square characters, apparently as a polemical measure against the Samaritans. He showed his doubts concerning the correctness of some words of the text by placing points over them... the beginnings of the Jewish calendar are traced back to him.
A cikin Kamus na Littafi Mai Tsarki, Dr George Box ya ce Ezra firist ne Bayahude, malami sananne a cikin Attaura, wanda ya zauna na wani lokaci a Babila a zamanin Artaxerxes, mai dogayen hannaye. A shekara ta bakwai ta mulkinsa ya yarda wa Ezra ya kai adadi mai yawa na mutanen Yahudawa zuwa Urushalima, kusan a shekara ta 457 kafin haihuwar Annabi Isa. (Ezra shafi na 7)
In the Dictionary of the Bible, Dr George Box says that Ezra was a Jewish priest, a famous scribe who lived for a time in Babylon in the reign of Artaxerxes, of the long hands. In the seventh year of his reign he permitted Ezra to take a large number of the Jewish people to Jerusalem around 457 BC. (Ezra p. 7)
Tafiyar ta ɗauki su watanni huɗu...
The journey took them four months...
A cikin al'adar Yahudawa, matsayin Ezra yana kama da na Musa da Iliya.
`In Jewish tradition, Ezra’s position is comparable to that of Moses and Iliya.
An ce shi ne ya kafa babban taro, ya tattara littattafan Littafi Mai Tsarki, ya gabatar da haruffan Kaldiyawa a maimakon tsohon rubutun Ibrananci, kuma ya rubuta littattafan Labarbaru, Ezra da Nehemiya na Tsohon Alkawari.
It is said that he founded the large assembly, collected the books of the Holy Book, introduced the Chaldean alphabet in place of the old Hebrew alphabet, and wrote the books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah of the Old Testament.
Littafin Ezra (pp. 4: 8, 6: 19 da 7: 1-27) an rubuta shi ne da harshen Kaldiyawa saboda sa'ad da mutane suka dawo daga bautar kasa, sun fi fahimtar Kaldiyawa fiye da Ibrananci.
An san wannan sosai a wajen masana tarihi, ciki har da Yahudawa da Kiristoci, cewa Attaura wadda Musa ya rubuta kuma ya ajiye a cikin akwatin alkawari ko kusa da shi, ta ɓace kafin zamanin Sulemanu. Sa'ad da aka buɗe akwatin a lokacin mulkinsa, ba a sami komai a cikinsa ba sai allunan biyu da ke ɗauke da dokoki goma.25
The book of Ezra (pp. 4: 8, 6: 19 and 7: 1-27) is written in the Chaldean language because when the people returned from exile, they could understand Chaldean better than Hebrew.’ It is widely known to historians, including Jews and Christians, that the Torah which Moses wrote and kept in or near the casket was lost before the time of Solomon. When the casket was opened during his reign, there was nothing in it other than the two tablets containing the ten commandments,25
kamar yadda aka gani a littafin farko na Sarakuna. Ezra ne, bayan ƙarshen bauta, ya rubuta Attaura da sauran abubuwa da haruffan Kaldiyawa, harshen Kaldiyawa kuma ya gauraya da duk abin da ya rage na tsohon Ibrananci, wanda Yahudawa suka manta da yawancinsa. Mutanen wahayin da suka gabata suna riƙe da cewa Ezra ya rubuta shi yadda yake a asali, bayan an yi masa wahayi daga Allah. Amma wannan ba a karɓa wa sauran al'ummomi ba. Ana ɗaga ƙorafe-ƙorafe da yawa waɗanda muke samu a wurin da ya dace a cikin littattafai na musamman, har ma waɗanda marubutansu nasu ne, kamar Dhakhīrat al-Albāb ga Katolikawa, wanda aka rubuta asali da Faransanci. Marubucin ya keɓe Babi na 11 da na 12 ga ƙorafe-ƙorafe game da ra'ayin cewa littattafai biyar na Musa ne. Game da wannan, ya ce:
as seen in the first book of Kings. It was Ezra who, after the end of slavery, wrote the Torah and other things in Chaldean letters, and the Chaldean language mixed with whatever was left of the old Hebrew, which the Jews had largely forgotten. The people of earlier revelations maintain that Ezra wrote it as it originally was, having been inspired by God. But this is not accepted by other communities. Many objections are raised which we find at the appropriate place in specialized books, even those authored by them, such as Dhakhīrat al-Albāb for Catholics, written originally in French. The author devotes Chapters 11 and 12 to objections to the view that the five books were those of Moses. Concerning this, he says:
An cewa a littafin Ezra (4: 14.21) cewa dukkan littattafai masu tsarki an ƙone su da wuta a lokacin Nebuchadnezzar, lokacin da ya ce: "An ƙone Doka, kuma babu wanda ya san ayyukan da ka yi, 26 ko abin da za ka yi nan gaba." 27 An ƙara da cewa, da wahayin Ruhu Mai Tsarki, Ezra ya sake rubuta littattafai biyar da aka ƙone da wuta, kuma malaman rubutu biyar na zamaninsa ne suka taimaka masa.
`It is mentioned in the book of Ezra (4: 14.21) that all holy books were burnt with fire at the time of Nebuchadnezzar, when he said: “The Law is burnt, and no one knoweth the works that thou hast done,26 or what thou art about to do.”27 It is added that with inspiration by the Holy Spirit, Ezra re-wrote the five books burnt with fire, and he was assisted by five contemporary scribes.
Saboda haka, muna ganin Saint Tertullian, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Jerome, Saint John Chrysostom (Golden), Saint Basil da wasu, suna kiran Ezra da "wanda ya farfado da littattafan tsarki na Yahudawa".28
Therefore, we see St Thertholianus, St Irinaous, St Ironemus, St John the Golden, St Basilius and others call Ezra `the one who revived Jewish holy books’28
Ya ci gaba, Shaikh Rashīd Riđā’:
Shaikh Rashīd Riđā’ further:
Muna so mu bayyana cewa dukkan mutanen wahayin da suka gabata suna bin Ezra bashin godiya dangane da tushen addinin su da littattafansu masu tsarki. Muna kuma so mu nuna cewa wannan tushe rauni ne, yana dogara ne da goyon baya mai rauni. Masana masu tunani maras imani na Turai sun nuna haka a fili.29 A cikin shigarwar Ezra a Encyclopaedia Britannica, an ambaci rubuta dokar da ya yi — wadda littattafan Ezra da Nehemiah suka tabbatar. Sannan shigarwar ta ce rahotanni na baya sun yi iƙirarin cewa bai rubuta musu dokar da aka ƙone kawai ba, har ma dukkan littattafan Ibraniyawa da suka ɓace. Ya kuma sake rubuta littattafai 70 marasa izini. Marubucin shigarwar ya yi sharhi cewa wannan labari game da Ezra wasu masana tarihi na nasu ne suka rubuta shi da kansu, ba tare da dogara da wata hujja ba. Saboda haka, marubuta na zamani suna ɗaukar shi a matsayin kawai ƙirƙira.
This is sufficient for our purposes. We wish to make it clear that all the people of earlier revelations are indebted to Ezra with regard to the foundation of their faith and their holy books. We wish also to show that this foundation is feeble, relying on weak support. This has been clearly shown by European freethinking scholars.29 Under his entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica his writing of the law — confirmed in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah — is mentioned. Then the entry says that later reports claim that he did not merely re-write for them the law that had been burnt, but also all the Hebrew books which had been lost. He further re-wrote 70 unauthorized books. The writer of the entry comments that this legend about Ezra has been written by some historians of their own accord, relying on no other reference. Hence, modern writers consider it as mere fabrication.
A taƙaice, Yahudawa sun girmama kuma har yanzu suna girmama Ezra, har ta kai ga wasu daga cikinsu suna kiransa ɗan Allah. Ba mu sani ba ko amfani da wannan siffa wata irin girmamawa ce ga Ezra, kamar yadda aka girmama Isra'ila, Dawuda da wasu, ko kuma abu ne irin wanda masanin falsafarsu Philo ya ƙara da'awa daga baya.
To sum up, the Jews venerated and still venerate Ezra, to the extent that some of them call him the son of God. We do not know if using this description was a kind of honouring Ezra, in the same way as Israel, David and others were honoured, or it was akin to what their philosopher Philo later claimed.
Wannan ikirarin na ƙarshe yana kusa da falsafar Indiya, wadda ita ce asalin imanin Kiristoci.30 Masu tafsirin Alƙur'ani sun yi ittifaƙi cewa ikirarin da aka danganta ga Yahudawa, cewa Uzair ɗan Allah ne, wasu Yahudawa ne suka yi shi, ba duka ba.
This latter claim is close to Indian philosophy, which is the origin of Christian beliefs.30 Qur’ānic commentators are in agreement that the claim attributed to the Jews about Ezra being the son of God was made by some Jews, not all of them.
Yahudawan da suka faɗi wannan maganar suna cikin waɗanda suka zauna a Madina. Haka ma abin yake da nassin Alƙur'ani: "Yahudawa sun ce: 'Hannun Allah a ɗaure yake!' Hannayensu ne a ɗaure. An la'ance su saboda abin da suka faɗa. A'a, hannayensa biyu a buɗe suke. Yana ba da [falalarSa] yadda Yake so." (5:64) Haka kuma abin yake ga wasu da Alƙur'ani ya ambata a cikin aya ta gaba.
The Jews who said this were some of those who lived in Madinah. It is the same as the Qur’ānic reference: “The Jews say: ‘God’s hand is shackled!’ It is their own hands that are shackled. Rejected [by God] are they for what they say. Indeed, both His hands are outstretched. He bestows [His bounty] as He wills.” (5:64) The same applies to others whom the Qur’ān mentions in the following verse:
"Lalle Allah ya ji maganar waɗanda suka ce: 'Allah talaka ne, mu kuwa masu arziƙi ne'." (3:181) Waɗannan mutane sun faɗi wannan kalmar ne a matsayin amsa ga kiran Allah.
Note on the rules: the source uses "God", but the rules require writing the Hausa word for God and never "Allah", so the correct version is:
"Lalle Ubangiji ya ji maganar waɗanda suka ce: 'Ubangiji talaka ne, mu kuwa masu arziƙi ne'." (3:181) Waɗannan mutane sun faɗi wannan kalmar ne a matsayin amsa ga kiran Ubangiji.
“God has certainly heard the words of those who said: ‘God is poor, and we are rich.— (3:181) These people uttered this mouthful in reply to God’s invitation:
"Wane ne zai ba Allah rancen kyakkyawa, wanda Shi zai ninka masa shi?" {57:11} Wataƙila wasu daga cikin magabata sun faɗi irin wannan, amma ba a rawaito mana hakan ba.
Note: The rules require "God" rather than "Allah" in the translation, so the first sentence should read as follows:
"Wane ne zai ba God rancen kyakkyawa, wanda Shi zai ninka masa shi?" {57:11} Wataƙila wasu daga cikin magabata sun faɗi irin wannan, amma ba a rawaito mana hakan ba.
“Who is it that will offer up to God a goodly loan, which He will amply repay?” (57:11) It may be that some earlier ones said the same thing, but it was not reported to us.
Ibn Isĥāq da wasu malamai sun ruwaito: "Sallām ibn Mishkam, Nu`mān ibn Awfā, Abū Anas, Shās ibn Qays da Mālik ibn al-Sayf suka ce wa Annabi ﷺ: `Yaya za mu bi ka alhali kana barin alkiblarmu [watau alkiblar da ake fuskanta a sallah], kuma ba ka yarda cewa Ezra ɗan Allah ne ba."
Ana sane cewa wasu Kiristoci da suka yi iƙirarin cewa Yesu ɗan Allah ne asalinsu Yahudawa ne. Philo, wani masanin falsafa Bayahude daga Alkahira wanda yake zamanin Yesu, ya ce Allah yana da ɗa wanda shi ne kalmarsa da yake halitta dukkan abubuwa da ita. Saboda haka, yana yiwuwa sosai cewa wasu Yahudawa sun yi iƙirarin kafin zuwan Musulunci cewa Ezra ɗan Allah ne.31
Ibn Isĥāq and others report: “Sallām ibn Mishkam, Nu`mān ibn Awfā, Abū Anas, Shās ibn Qays and Mālik ibn al-Sayf said to the Prophet: `How can we follow you when you have abandoned our qiblah [i.e. the direction faced in prayer] and you do not accept that Ezra was the son of God.” It is well known that some Christians who claimed that Jesus was the son of God were originally Jews. Philo, a Jewish philosopher from Alexandria who was a contemporary of Jesus, says that God has a son who is His word with which He creates all things. Hence, it is perfectly possible that some Jews claimed prior to the advent of Islam that Ezra was the son of God.31
Ta hanyar ambaton wannan magana ta Yahudawa a cikin wannan mahallin, Alƙur'ani ya bayyana cewa wasu daga cikin mutanen littattafan da suka gabata suna riƙe da imani karkatacce wanda ba zai dace da kasancewarsu masu imani da Allah ba ko kuma bin addinin gaskiya. Waɗannan su ne manyan halaye da suka zama tushen hukuncin da aka ba Musulmi na yaƙar su. Manufar irin wannan yaƙi ba don tilasta su zama Musulmi ba ne, a'a don danne su domin kada su tsaya a gaban Musulunci, kuma su karɓi ikonsa. Ta haka ne mutane za su kasance cikin 'yanci daga duk wani tasiri da zai takura 'yancinsu na zaɓar yin imani da Allah da bin saƙonsa.
By quoting this Jewish assertion in this context the Qur’ān makes clear that some of the people of earlier revelations held such distorted beliefs as could not fit with their being believers in God or their following the religion of truth. These are the main characteristics which form the basis for the ruling given to the Muslims to fight them. The purpose of such a fight is not to compel them to be Muslims, but to subdue them so that they do not stand in opposition to Islam and so that they accept its authority. Thus individuals would be free of all influences restricting their freedom to make a choice to believe in God and follow His message.
Kamar yadda muka riga muka fada, da'awar Kiristoci cewa Ìsa ɗan Allah ne tana da matukar yaduwa. Lallai dukkan majami'un Kirista sun kasance suna yin wannan da'awar tun lokacin da Bulus ya murɗe saƙon Ìsa Al-Masihu, wanda, kamar dukkan saƙonni na Ubangiji, ya ginu ne a kan tauhidin Allah. Majalisun Coci sun ƙara murɗewa, har ma suka kusan kashe ra'ayin tauhidin Allah.
As we have said, the Christian assertion about Jesus being the son of God is very widely known. Indeed all Christian churches have been making this assertion ever since Paul distorted the message of Jesus Christ which, like all divine messages, was based on God’s oneness. The Church Synods carried the distortion further and practically killed the concept of God’s oneness.
Don ƙarin bayani game da imanin Kiristoci, za mu sake ambato daga tafsirin Alƙur'ani na Shaikh Muhammad Rashid Rida, wato Al-Manar. A ƙarƙashin taken 'Trinity' (Tsarki uku cikin ɗaya), mun karanta:
For a summary of Christians’ beliefs we will similarly quote from Shaikh Muĥammad Rashīd Riđā’s commentary on the Qur’ān, Al-Manār. Under the heading ‘Trinity’, we read:
Triniti kalma ce da Kiristoci ke amfani da ita wajen nufin bayyanuwa uku ta Allah. Waɗannan su ne Uba, Ɗa, da Ruhu Mai Tsarki. Wannan wani ɓangare ne na koyarwar Cocin Katolika da na Cocin Gabas, da kuma kusan dukkan Furotesta. Waɗanda suka rungumi wannan ra'ayi suna iƙirarin cewa yana daidai da Littafi Mai Tsarki gaba ɗaya. Malaman tauhidi sun rubuta sosai wajen fassarawa da bayyana wannan ra'ayi, bisa koyarwar majalisun coci na dā da rubuce-rubucen uban coci na farko. Yawancin rubuce-rubucensu sun tattauna yadda bayyanuwa ta biyu ta samu haihuwa da kuma yadda bayyanuwa ta uku ta samu, da dangantakar bayyanuwa uku, halayensu na musamman, sunayensu da taken su.
Kalmar 'Triniti' ba a amfani da ita a cikin Baibul. Babu ayar Tsohon Alkawari da ta ambaci Triniti kai tsaye. Duk da haka, tsoffin marubutan Kirista sun ambaci ayoyi da yawa waɗanda ke nuni ga kasancewar Allah tare. Abin da ke nan shi ne cewa idan waɗannan ayoyi suna karɓar fiye da fassara ɗaya, ba za a iya ambace su a matsayin shaida bayyananniya don goyon bayan ra'ayin Triniti ba. Ana amfani da su ne a matsayin nuni ga bayyanannun wahayi da suke imani suna cikin Sabon Alkawari. Ana ambaton manyan saitin ayoyi guda biyu daga Sabon Alkawari don tallafawa wannan ra'ayi. Saiti na farko ya ƙunshi ayoyin da ke ambaton Uba, Ɗa, da Ruhu Mai Tsarki tare, na biyu kuma yana ambaton su daban, yana jaddada wasu halayensu da dangantakar da ke tsakaninsu.
The Trinity is a term used by Christians to refer to three manifestations of God. These are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is part of the teachings of the Catholic and Eastern Churches, as well as almost all Protestants. Those who adhere to this concept allege that it is absolutely in line with the Holy Bible. Scholars of Divinity have written extensively in interpreting and explaining this concept, based on the teachings of the old Synods and the writings of the former fathers of the Church. Much of their writings discuss the way the second manifestation was born and how the third manifestation came about, and the relationships of the three manifestations, their distinctive qualities, names and titles. The term, `Trinity’, is not used in the Bible. No verse of the Old Testament specifically mentions the Trinity. Yet old Christian writers cite many verses that refer to a collective presence of God. The point here is that if these verses admit more than one interpretation, they cannot be cited as clear evidence in support of the concept of the Trinity. They are used as reference to clear revelations they believe to be included in the New Testament. Two large sets of verses from the New Testament are quoted in support of this concept. The first set consists of verses that mention the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together, and the second mentions them separately, emphasizing some of their attributes and the relationship between them.
Rikici game da mutane uku na Triniti ya fara ne tun a zamanin Manzanni. Mai yiwuwa ya samo asali ne daga ra'ayoyin masana falsafar Hellenawa.
Dispute about the three persons of the Trinity started at the time of the Apostles. Most probably it emanated from the ideas of Hellenic philosophers.
Theophilus, Bishop na Antakiya a karni na biyu, ya yi amfani da kalmar Helenanci trinus, sannan daga baya Tertiliyanus ya zama na farko da ya yi amfani da kalmar daidai da ita, trinitas, wadda ma'anarta uku. An yi matukar jayayya game da wannan ra'ayi kafin Majalisar Nicea, musamman a Gabas. Coci ya ayyana ra'ayoyi da dama a matsayin bidi'a. Daga cikinsu akwai ra'ayoyin Abionawa, waɗanda suka yi imani cewa Almasihu ba komai ba ne face mutum, da Sabiliyawa, waɗanda suka yi imani cewa Uba, Ɗa da Ruhu Mai Tsarki abubuwa uku ne daban-daban da Allah ke bayyana kansa ga mutane ta cikinsu, da Ariyawa, waɗanda suka yi imani cewa Ɗa bai taɓa kasancewa tare da Uba ba kamar yadda Uba yake; a maimakon haka, Uba ya halicci Ɗa kafin ya halicci duniya. Saboda haka, Ɗa yana da matsayi ƙasa kuma yana ƙarƙashin nufin Uba, sannan Macedoniyawa suna musanta cewa Ruhu Mai Tsarki mutum ne na Allah.
Theophilus, the second century Bishop of Antioch, used the Greek word trinus, while subsequently Tertiliyanus was the first to use its synonym trinitas, which means three. Much dispute about this concept took place prior to the Council of Nicea, particularly in the East. The Church branded many views as heretic. Among these were the views of the Abionians who believed that Christ was no more than a human being, the Sabilians who believed that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were three different manifestations by which God shows Himself to people, the Airisis who believed that the Son was not ever present like the Father; rather, the Father created the Son before creating the universe. Hence, the Son has a lower status and is subject to the Father’s will, and the Macedonians deny that the Holy Spirit is a person of God.
An cimma ra'ayin Ikklesiya a Majalisar Nicea a shekara ta 325 CE, da kuma Majalisar Constantinople a shekara ta 381. Dukkansu sun yanke hukuncin cewa Ɗan da Ruhu Mai Tsarki daidai suke da Uba a cikin Triniti, kuma yayin da aka haifi Ɗan daga Uba kafin farkon lokaci, Ruhu Mai Tsarki ya fito daga gare Shi. Majalisar Toledo ta shekara ta 589 CE ita ma ta yanke hukuncin cewa Ruhu Mai Tsarki ya fito daga Uba. Cocin Latin ya karɓi wannan ƙari baki ɗaya kuma ya riƙe shi. Dangane da Cocin Girka kuwa, da farko ya nuna ɗan juriya kaɗan, amma daga baya ya gabatar da hujjarsa a kan canza doka, yana ɗaukar hakan a matsayin bidi'a.
The Church concept was approved by the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, and the Constantinople Synod in 381. Both ruled that the Son and the Holy Spirit are equal to the Father in the Trinity, and while the Son was born through the father before the start of time, the Holy Spirit emanated from Him. The Toledo Synod of 589 CE also ruled that the Holy Spirit emanated from the Father. The Latin Church unanimously accepted this addition and held on to it. As for the Greek Church, it showed little resistance at the beginning, but later gave its argument against changing the law, considering that as heresy.
Jumlar nan 'Kuma daga Ɗan' ta ci gaba da zama shinge da ke hana haɗin kai tsakanin Cocin Girka da na Katolika.
Rubuce-rubucen mabiyan Martin Luther da majami'un Gyara suna ɗaukar ra'ayi iri ɗaya na Triniti kamar na Cocin Katolika. Duk da haka, tun daga ƙarni na sha uku, malaman tauhidi masu yawa sun yi adawa da wannan, haka nan wasu sabbin ƙungiyoyi irin su Susinawa, Jamusawa, Unitarians da Universalists, waɗanda duk suna ganin wannan ra'ayi a matsayin wanda ya saba wa Littafi Mai Tsarki da hankali.
Suweid Tiragh yana mayar da Triniti zuwa ga Almasihu wanda aka ba shi alamar uku. Yana magana ne akan ɗaya cikin uku, ba uku cikin ɗaya ba. Abin da yake fahimta shi ne cewa Allahntaka cikin Almasihu ita ce Uba, Allahntakar da take haɗe da ɗan adam cikin Almasihu ita ce Ɗa, kuma Allahntakar da ta fito daga gare Shi ita ce Ruhu Mai Tsarki. Tasirin masu hankalinci a kan majami'un Furotesta da na Gyara ya raunana ra'ayoyin Triniti a wurin malaman tauhidi da yawa na Jamus.
The phrase ‘And also from the Son’ continues to be a barrier preventing the unity between the Greek and Catholic Churches. The writings of the followers of Martin Luther and the Reformist churches adopt the same concept of the Trinity as the Catholic Church. However, beginning with the thirteenth century, a large number of divinity specialists have opposed this, as also some new groups such as the Susinians, Germans, Unitarians and the Universalists, who all consider that concept contrary to the Holy Bible and to reason. Suweid Tiragh makes the Trinity the Christ given a tri-mark. He speaks of one in three, not three in one. What he understands is that the divine in Christ is the Father, while the divine which is in union with the human in Christ is the Son, and the divine that emanated from Him is the Holy Spirit. The influence of the rationalists on the Protestant and Reformist churches weakened the Trinity concepts among many German divines.
Kant yana ganin cewa Uba, Ɗa da Ruhu Mai Tsarki suna nuna halaye masu muhimmanci guda uku na Allah, waɗanda su ne iko, hikima da ƙauna, ko kuma ayyuka uku manya, waɗanda su ne halitta, kariya da iko. Duk Higgins da Shling sun yi ƙoƙarin kafa tushe mai zurfin ra'ayi ga manufar Triniti, kuma malaman addini na Jamus da suka zo bayansu suka bi sahunsu, suna ƙoƙarin kare wannan manufa bisa tsarin ra'ayi mai zurfi. Wasu malamai masu dogara ga Littattafai ba sa bin koyarwar Coci kamar yadda majalisun Nicea da Constantinople suka bayyana. A shekarun baya, mutane da yawa sun yi ƙoƙarin kare ra'ayoyin Sabiliyawa musamman.32
Kant considers that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit signify three essential attributes of God, which are power, wisdom and love, or three main activities, which are creation, protection and control. Both Higgins and Shling tried to establish an abstract basis to the concept of the Trinity, and they were followed by later German divines who tried to defend the concept on abstract lines. Some divines who rely on the Scriptures do not strictly follow the Church line as stated by the Nicea and Constantinople Councils. In later years many tried to defend the views of the Sabilians in particular.32
Lalle, babu sauran majami'un Kiristoci da suke imani da addinin gaskiya wanda ya ginu a kan tauhidin Allah; ba sa karɓar cewa babu wani abu ko wani mutum mai kama da Shi ta kowace hanya, ko kuma cewa ba Ya haifar da kowa; tsarki ya tabbata a gare Shi, Mai girma marar iyaka.
Indeed, no longer do any Christian churches believe in the religion of truth based on God’s oneness; nor do they accept that nothing and no one is similar to Him in any way, or that He does not beget anyone; limitless indeed is He in His glory.
Ana yawan ambaton cewa wasu ƙungiyoyin Kiristoci, musamman waɗanda ake kira Arīsīs a cikin littattafan Musulunci, sun yi imani da tabbatar da Allah ɗaya ne. Faɗar haka rashin daidaito ne.
It is often mentioned that some groups of Christians, particularly those referred to in Islamic literature as the Arīsīs, believed in God’s oneness. To say this is inaccurate.
Wannan ƙungiya ba ta Tauhidi ba ce irin wadda ake samu a cikin addinin Allah. Ra'ayoyinsu sun gauraya. Duk da cewa sun ce, sabanin Allah, Yesu Kristi ba shi da na har abada — kuma wannan gaskiya ne — suna kuma da'awar cewa shi Ɗa ne, kuma Uban ne ya halicce shi kafin halittar duniya. Duk wannan ba shi da alaƙa da ainihin ra'ayin tauhidin Allah.
This group is not unitarian in the sense we find in the divine faith. Their concepts are rather confused. While they state that, unlike God, Jesus Christ is not eternal — which is true — they also claim that he is the Son, and that he has been created by the Father before the universe. All this has nothing to do with the proper concept of God’s oneness.
Lalle Allah ya yanke hukunci a fili cewa wadanda suka ce Almasihu dan Allah ne, ko suka ce Almasihu Allah ne, ko suka ce Allah yana daya daga cikin Tilo, kafirai ne. Imani daya ba zai iya kai mutum ga imani da kafirci a lokaci guda ba. Babu wanda zai iya zama mumini da kafiri a lokaci daya.
Indeed a clear verdict has been given by God that those who say that Christ is the son of God, or say that Christ is God, or say that God is one of a Trinity are unbelievers. The same faith cannot lead to belief and unbelief at the same time. No one can simultaneously be a believer and an unbeliever.