Ko‘rib o‘tganimizdek, Alloh Muslimlarga ilgari vahiy berilgan xalqlar, ya’ni yahudiy va nasroniylarga qarshi kurashishni buyurdi: “O‘zlari xor bo‘lgan holda, jizya (soliq)ni o‘z qo‘llari bilan to‘lamaguncha.” (29-oyat) Bu buyruq berilganda, ushbu suraning muqaddimasida bayon etilgan ayrim vaziyatlar Madinadagi Muslimlar jamoatiga ta’sir ko‘rsatdi. Bu vaziyatlar mazkur buyruqni takrorlash va ta’kidlashni taqozo etardi. Uning sabablarini oydinlashtirish zarur edi. Ba’zi Muslimlarda bu buyruqning maqsadi haqida paydo bo‘lgan xavotirni bartaraf etish kerak edi. Bu buyruqqa itoat etish Shom (Suriya) janubidagi Vizantiyaliklarga qarshi chiqishni anglatardi. Islom kelishidan oldin arablar Vizantiyaliklardan qo‘rqib, ularni hurmat qilardi, ayniqsa ular uzoq vaqt Arabistonning shimoliy qismini nazorat qilgani uchun. Ba’zi arab qabilalari ular bilan hamkorlik qilgan, ularning qo‘g‘irchoq davlati ham bor edi, unda G‘assoniy qabilasi hokimiyatni qo‘lga olgan edi.
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.
Bu Vizantiyaliklar bilan musulmonlarning birinchi uchrashuvi emas edi. Islom orqali Xudo arablarga o‘zlik qadr-qimmatini berdi, bu ularga ham forslar, ham Vizantiyaliklar bilan bas kelish imkonini yaratdi. Ilgari ular ko‘rsatgan barcha jasorat ichki nizolarda va qabila qabilaga qarshi qilgan talonchilik yurishlarida namoyon bo‘lardi. Shunga qaramay, Vizantiyaliklardan qo‘rqish hali ham saqlanib qolgan edi, ayniqsa haqiqiy islomiy munosabatga hali erishmagan kishilar orasida. Bundan tashqari, Vizantiyaliklar bilan bo‘lgan so‘nggi yirik to‘qnashuv musulmonlar foydasiga yakunlanmagan edi. O‘sha jangda Vizantiyaliklar va ularning arab mustamlakachi yordamchilari bir necha manbalarga ko‘ra kamida 200 000 kishidan iborat katta qo‘shin to‘plagan edi.
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.
Ushbu barcha holatlar — shu davrdagi musulmon jamoasining tuzilishiga taalluqli bo‘lsinmi, Vizantiyalardan qadimdan mavjud bo‘lgan qo‘rquvga taalluqli bo‘lsinmi, yoki “mashaqqat lashkarlari” deb atalgan yurishning o‘zi bilan bog‘liq bo‘lsinmi — hamda Vizantiyalar va ular bilan ittifoqdosh bo‘lgan nasroniy arablar oldingi samoviy kitoblarga ergashgan, degan his ham qo‘shimcha aniqlik va yanada qat’iy bayonotlarni talab qilardi, toki ularga qarshi kurash muqarrar ekanligi ayon bo‘lsin. Barcha shubhalar bartaraf etilishi, bu qat’iy zaruratning sabablarini tushuntirish orqali tashvishlar esa tasalli bilan bartaraf etilishi kerak edi.
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.
Ushbu oyatda Qur’on aniq qilib bayon etadiki, o‘sha oldingi vahiylar ahllari nima uchun Arab mushriklari, qadimgi Rim mushriklari va boshqa millat hamda jamoalarning e’tiqodlariga o‘xshash noto‘g‘ri e’tiqodlarga ergashgan edilar. Ular o‘z Kitoblarida bayon qilingan to‘g‘ri imonni saqlab qolmagan edilar. Shu sababli ularni hech bir ilohiy xabarning izdoshi deb hisoblab bo‘lmas edi, chunki ular Alloh tomonidan nozil qilingan barcha xabarlarga zid e’tiqodlarni tutgan edilar. Diqqatga sazovor jihat shundaki, yahudiylar va ularning “Uzayr Alloh o‘g‘lidir” degan da’vosi eslatilmoqda, holbuki bu oyatlar musulmonlarni Vizantiyaliklar va ularning arab nasroniy ittifoqchilari bilan to‘qnashuvga tayyorlash uchun kelgandir. Buning, ehtimol, ikkita sababi bor.
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:
Birinchisi shundan iboratki, bu oyatlar umumiy bayon tarzida berilgan, va ahli kitobga, ya'ni yahudiy va nasroniylarga qarshi kurashish hamda ular bo'ysunib, qo'llari bilan o'z xohishi bilan jizya to'lamaguncha va xor bo'lmaguncha ularga qarshi urush qilish haqidagi buyruq ham umumiy ahamiyatga ega. Shunga ko'ra, yahudiylar va nasroniylar uchun birdek qo'llaniladigan ushbu umumiy buyruqning mafkuraviy asosini bayon qilish zarur.
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.
Ikkinchi sabab shundaki, yahudiylar bu tartibga kiritilishi kerak edi, chunki ular musulmonlarning Suriyaning janubiga kengayishiga to'siq qo'yishga qodir edilar. Qaynuqa` va an-Nadir qabilalarining chiqarilishiga olib kelgan musulmonlarga qarshi qattiq kurashdan so'ng, ular Madinadan Suriyaga yaqin hududlarga ko'chib ketgan edilar.
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.
Xristianlarning Iso Masih Xudoning o‘g‘li ekani haqidagi da’vosi yaxshi ma’lum. Bu ularning e’tiqodi Pavlus xristian diniga buzg‘unchilik kiritganidan beri shunday bo‘lib kelmoqda. Boshqa tomondan, yahudiylarning Uzayr Xudoning o‘g‘li ekani haqidagi da’vosi bugungi kunda ma’lum emas. Bugun yahudiylarning diniy yozuvlarida Uzayr haqida topilgan tavsif uni Tavrotning mohir kotibi sifatida ko‘rsatadi va u Egamizning qonunini bilishga o‘zini bag‘ishlagan edi. Shunga qaramay, Qur’on ularga Uzayr Xudoning o‘g‘li edi, degan bu da’voni nisbat berayotgani inkor etib bo‘lmas dalil bo‘lib, hech bo‘lmaganda ulardan ba’zilari, ayniqsa Madinadagi yahudiylar shunday deb ishongan va bu ular orasida keng tarqalgan bo‘lgan. Qur’on yahudiylar va xristianlarga ochiq va aniq tarzda murojaat qildi. Agar u ularga nisbat bergan narsada biror haqiqatga to‘g‘ri kelmaydigan jihat bo‘lganida, ular bunda Payg‘ambarning xabari haqiqatini rad etishlari uchun asosli dalil topgan bo‘lar edilar.
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.
Marhum Shayx Rashid Rizo bu borada foydali xulosa beradi: Ezraning yahudiylar nazarida egallagan o‘rni va mavqei haqida, shuningdek, o‘zining izohlarini qo‘shadi. Yahudiylar nima deb e’tiqod qilishlarini bilish uchun uning bir necha xatboshisini bu yerda keltirish foydali bo‘ladi.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.
Dr. George Box "Muqaddas Kitob lug'ati"da Ezra haqida yozadiki, u yahudiy ruhoniysi, mashhur kotib bo'lgan va bir muddat Bobilda, uzun qo'lli Artakserks hukmronligi davrida yashagan. Uning hukmronligining yettinchi yilida u Ezraga yahudiylarning katta qismini Quddusga olib ketishga ruxsat bergan, bu taxminan miloddan avvalgi 457-yilga to'g'ri keladi. (Ezra, 7-bob)
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)
Yo‘l ularga to‘rt oy davom etdi...
The journey took them four months...
Yahudiy an'anasida Uzayr (Ezra) ning mavqei Muso va Ilyoga o'xshashdir.
`In Jewish tradition, Ezra’s position is comparable to that of Moses and Iliya.
Shuningdek, u "Katta majlis"ga asos solgani, Muqaddas Kitob kitoblarini to'plagani, eski ibroniy alifbosi o'rniga xaldey alifbosini joriy etgani va Eski Ahdning Solnomalar, Ezra va Nehemiya kitoblarini yozgani aytiladi.
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.
Ezra kitobi (4:8, 6:19 va 7:1-27 oyatlari) xaldey tilida yozilgan, chunki qaytib kelgan xalq ibroniy tilidan ko‘ra xaldey tilini yaxshiroq tushunar edi. Yahudiylar va xristianlar kabi tarixchilarga keng ma'lumki, Muso yozgan va sandiq ichida yoki yonida saqlangan Tavrot Sulaymon davridan oldin yo‘qolgan. Uning hukmronligi davrida sandiq ochilganda, undan o‘n amrni o‘z ichiga olgan ikki lavhdan boshqa hech narsa topilmagan.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
...birinchi Shohlar kitobida ko'rsatilganidek. Qullik tugagandan so'ng Ezra Tavrotni va boshqa narsalarni xaldey harflarida yozib chiqdi, xaldey tili esa qolgan eski ibroniy tili bilan aralashdi, yahudiylar esa uni ko'p jihatdan unutgan edilar. Oldingi vahiylarga e'tiqod qiluvchilar Ezra uni dastlab qanday bo'lsa, shundayligicha yozgan deb hisoblaydilar, chunki u Xudo tomonidan ilhomlantirilgan edi. Ammo bu boshqa jamoalar tomonidan qabul qilinmaydi. Ko'plab e'tirozlar bildiriladiki, ularni tegishli joylarda ixtisoslashgan kitoblardan topish mumkin, hatto ularning o'zlari yozgan kitoblarda ham, masalan, asli fransuz tilida yozilgan katoliklar uchun Dhakhīrat al-Albāb kitobida. Muallif 11- va 12-boblarni besh kitob Musoniki ekanligi haqidagi qarashga qilingan e'tirozlarga bag'ishlaydi. Bu haqda u shunday deydi:
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:
Ezra kitobida (4:14.21) Navuxodonosor davrida barcha muqaddas kitoblar olov bilan yoqib yuborilgani zikr etiladi. U shunday degan edi: "Qonun yoqib yuborildi, va sen qilgan ishlaringni, yoki qilmoqchi bo'lgan ishlaringni hech kim bilmaydi."26 27 Shuningdek, Muqaddas Ruh ilhomi bilan Ezra olov bilan yoqilgan besh kitobni qayta yozgani va unga o'sha davrdagi besh kotib yordam bergani qo'shib aytiladi.
`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.
Shuning uchun biz Avliyo Tertullianus, Avliyo Irinaeus, Avliyo Ieronimus, Oltin og'izli Avliyo Ioann, Avliyo Basiliy va boshqalarning Ezrani "yahudiy muqaddas kitoblarini tiriltirgan" deb atаganini ko'ramiz.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
Shayx Rashīd Ridā' davom etadi:
Shaikh Rashīd Riđā’ further:
Biz barcha oldingi vahiylar ahlining imon asosi va muqaddas kitoblari borasida Uzayrga qarzdor ekanligini ko'rsatmoqchimiz. Shuningdek, bu asosning zaif ekanligini, sust dalillarga tayanganini ko'rsatmoqchimiz. Buni Yevropadagi erkin fikrli olimlar aniq ko'rsatib berganlar.
Encyclopaedia Britannica'dagi Uzayr maqolasida uning Tavrotni yozgani, ya'ni yoqib yuborilgan qonunni qayta yozgani, bu esa Ezra va Nehemiya kitoblarida tasdiqlanganligi zikr etilgan. Keyin maqolada keyingi rivoyatlarda u nafaqat yoqib yuborilgan qonunni qayta yozib bergani, balki yo'qolgan barcha ibroniy kitoblarini ham qayta yozgani, shuningdek 70 ta ruxsatsiz kitobni ham qayta yozgani da'vo qilinishi aytilgan. Maqola muallifi bu Uzayr haqidagi afsonani ba'zi tarixchilar o'z xohishlariga ko'ra, boshqa hech qanday manbaga tayanmasdan yozganlarini izohlaydi. Shuning uchun zamonaviy yozuvchilar uni shunchaki to'qima deb hisoblaydilar.
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.
Xulosa qilib aytganda, yahudiylar Ozirni (Ezra) ulug'lab keldilar va hozir ham ulug'laydilar, hatto ularning ba'zilari uni Xudoning o'g'li deb ataydilar. Bu ta'rifni ishlatish Ozirni hurmat qilishning bir shakli bo'lganmi, xuddi Isroil, Dovud va boshqalar hurmatga sazovor bo'lganidek, yoki ular keyinchalik faylasufi Filon da'vo qilgan narsaga o'xshash bo'lganmi, buni bilmaymiz.
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.
Bu so'nggi da'vo Hind falsafasiga yaqin bo'lib, nasroniy e'tiqodlarining manbai aynan o'sha yerdadir.30 Qur'on tafsirchilari shu fikrda birdek, Uzayr Alloh o'g'li, degan da'vo yahudiylarga nisbat berilgan, ammo bu gapni barcha yahudiylar emas, balki ayrim yahudiylar aytgan.
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.
Bu so'zni aytgan yahudiylar Madinada yashagan kishilar edi. Bu Qur'oni Karimdagi quyidagi oyatga ishora: {Yahudiylar: "Allohning qo'li bog'langan!" dedilar. Qo'llari bog'langan ularning o'zlari bo'lsin. Ular aytgan so'zlari sababli la'natga uchradilar. Aslida, Uning ikki qo'li ham ochiqdir. U xohlaganicha ato etadi.} (5:64) Xuddi shu hukm Qur'on keyingi oyatda zikr qilgan boshqa kishilarga ham tegishlidir.
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:
"Albatta, Alloh — «Alloh faqir, biz esa boymiz», deganlarning so‘zini eshitdi» (3:181). Bu odamlar Allohning da’vatiga javoban shu og‘iz so‘zni aytdilar:
Note: the rules say the word for God must not be "Allah", so the correct rendering is:
"Albatta, Xudo «Xudo faqir, biz esa boymiz», deganlarning so‘zini eshitdi» (3:181). Bu odamlar Xudoning da’vatiga javoban shu og‘iz so‘zni aytdilar:
“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:
"Kim Allohga go'zal qarz beradiki, U buni ko'p barobar qilib qaytarsin?" (57:11) Ehtimol, bundan oldingi ba'zi kishilar ham shunday degandir, lekin bu bizgacha rivoyat qilinmagan.
“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 va boshqalar rivoyat qiladilar: "Sallām ibn Mishkam, Nu`mān ibn Awfā, Abū Anas, Shās ibn Qays va Mālik ibn al-Sayf Payg'ambarga dedilar: `Siz bizning qiblamizni tark etdingiz va Ozirning Allohning o'g'li ekanligini tan olmaysiz, biz qanday qilib sizga ergashamiz?`" Ma'lumki, Iso Allohning o'g'li deb da'vo qilgan ba'zi nasroniylar asli yahudiy bo'lgan. Iskandariyalik yahudiy faylasufi, Iso zamonida yashagan Filon shunday deydi: Allohning o'g'li bor, u Uning kalomi bo'lib, Alloh u orqali barcha narsalarni yaratadi. Shunday ekan, Islom paydo bo'lishidan oldin ba'zi yahudiylar Ozirning Allohning o'g'li ekanini da'vo qilgan bo'lishi mumkin.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
Bu yahudiylarning da'vosini shu o'rinda keltirish orqali Qur'on aniq qiladiki, avvalgi vahiylar ahlidan ba'zilari shunday buzilgan e'tiqodlarga ega bo'lganki, ular Xudoga iymon keltirgan mo'minlar bo'lishlari yoki haq dinga ergashishlari bilan mos kelmas edi. Musulmonlarga ularga qarshi urush qilish to'g'risida berilgan hukmning asosini tashkil etadigan asosiy xususiyatlar mana shulardir. Bunday urushning maqsadi ularni musulmon bo'lishga majburlash emas, balki ularni shunday bo'ysundirishki, ular Islomga qarshi turmasligi va uning hokimiyatini qabul qilishi uchundir. Shunday qilib, odamlar Xudoga iymon keltirish va Uning xabariga ergashish uchun tanlov qilish erkinligini cheklaydigan barcha ta'sirlardan xoli bo'ladilar.
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.
Yuqorida aytib o'tganimizdek, Iso Masih Allohning o'g'li ekanligi haqidagi nasroniylik da'vosi juda keng tarqalgan. Haqiqatan ham, Pavlus Iso Masihning xabarini buzganidan beri, ya'ni u barcha ilohiy xabarlar kabi Allohning yagonaligiga asoslangan bo'lsa-da, barcha xristian cherkovlari shu da'voni ilgari surib kelmoqda. Cherkov sinodlari bu buzilishni yanada chuqurlashtirib, Allohning yagonaligi tushunchasini amalda yo'q qilib yuborgan.
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.
Masihiylarning e'tiqodlari xulosasi uchun biz ham Shayx Muhammad Rashid Rizoning Qur'on tafsiri "Al-Manor"dan iqtibos keltiramiz. "Uch birlik" sarlavhasi ostida shunday o'qiymiz:
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:
Uchbirlik (Trinity) — bu xristianlar tomonidan Xudoning uch ko‘rinishiga ishora qilish uchun ishlatiladigan atama. Bular Ota, O‘g‘il va Muqaddas Ruhdir. Bu tushuncha Katolik va Sharqiy cherkovlarning, shuningdek deyarli barcha protestantlarning ta’limotining bir qismidir. Bu tushunchaga amal qiluvchilar uni Muqaddas Injilga to‘liq mos deb da’vo qiladilar. Ilohiyot olimlari bu tushunchani talqin qilish va izohlash borasida, qadimgi sinodlarning ta’limotlari hamda sobiq cherkov otalarining asarlariga tayanib, keng yozganlar. Ularning yozuvlarining ko‘p qismi ikkinchi ko‘rinishning qanday tug‘ilganini, uchinchi ko‘rinishning qanday paydo bo‘lganini, uch ko‘rinish o‘rtasidagi munosabatlarni, ularning o‘ziga xos xususiyatlarini, nomlari va unvonlarini muhokama qiladi.
«Uchbirlik» atamasi Bibliyada ishlatilmaydi. Eski Ahdning hech bir oyati uchbirlikni aniq zikr qilmaydi. Shunga qaramay, qadimgi xristian yozuvchilari Xudoning birgalikdagi mavjudligiga ishora qiluvchi ko‘plab oyatlarni keltiradilar. Bu yerdagi gap shundaki, agar bu oyatlar bir necha talqinga yo‘l qo‘yadigan bo‘lsa, ularni uchbirlik tushunchasini qo‘llab-quvvatlovchi aniq dalil sifatida keltirib bo‘lmaydi. Ular Yangi Ahdda mavjud deb hisoblangan aniq vahiylarga murojaat sifatida ishlatiladi. Yangi Ahddan bu tushunchani qo‘llab-quvvatlash uchun ikkita katta oyatlar to‘plami keltiriladi. Birinchi to‘plam Ota, O‘g‘il va Muqaddas Ruhni birga zikr qiluvchi oyatlardan iborat, ikkinchisi esa ularni alohida zikr qilib, ularning ayrim sifatlari va o‘zaro munosabatlarini ta’kidlaydi.
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.
Uchlik (Uch Shaxs) haqidagi bahs havoriylar davrida boshlangan. Ehtimol, bu fikr yunon (Hellen) faylasuflarining g'oyalaridan kelib chiqqan.
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.
Antioxiya episkopi, ikkinchi asrda yashagan Teofil yunoncha "trinus" so'zini ishlatgan, keyinroq esa Tertiliyanus uning sinonimi "trinitas" so'zini birinchi bo'lib qo'llagan, bu so'z "uch" degan ma'noni anglatadi. Bu tushuncha atrofida Nikeya kengashidan oldin, ayniqsa Sharqda, ko'p bahslar bo'lib o'tgan. Cherkov ko'plab qarashlarni bid'at deb e'lon qilgan. Ular orasida Iso Masihni oddiy inson deb hisoblagan abioniyaliklarning, Ota, O'g'il va Muqaddas Ruh Xudoning odamlarga O'zini namoyon qilishining uch xil ko'rinishi deb bilgan sabeliyaliklarning, Ota singari O'g'il hech qachon mavjud bo'lmagan, balki Ota olamni yaratishdan avval O'g'ilni yaratgan deb ishongan ariylarning hamda Muqaddas Ruhni Xudoning shaxsi emas deb inkor etgan makedoniyaliklarning qarashlari bor edi. Shu sababli O'g'ilning maqomi pastroq bo'lib, u Otaning irodasiga bo'ysunadi, degan fikr ham shu yerda vujudga keldi.
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.
Cherkov tushunchasi miloddan avvalgi 325-yilda Nikeya kengashi va miloddan keyingi 381-yilda Konstantinopol sinodi tomonidan tasdiqlangan. Ikkalasi ham Uch Birlikda O'g'il va Muqaddas Ruhning Otaga teng ekanligini belgiladi; O'g'il vaqt boshlanishidan oldin Ota orqali tug'ilgan, Muqaddas Ruh esa Undan chiqqan, deb hukm qilindi. Miloddan keyingi 589-yilda bo'lib o'tgan Toledo sinodi ham Muqaddas Ruhning Otadan chiqqanini belgiladi. Lotin cherkovi bu qo'shimchani bir ovozdan qabul qildi va unga mahkam yopishib oldi. Yunon cherkoviga kelsak, dastlab u kam qarshilik ko'rsatdi, ammo keyinchalik qonunni o'zgartirishga qarshi dalil keltirib, buni bid'at deb hisobladi.
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.
"And also from the Son" ifodasi Yunon va Katolik cherkovlari o‘rtasidagi birlikka to‘siq bo‘lib kelmoqda. Martin Lyuter izdoshlari va islohotchi cherkovlarning yozuvlari Trinity (Uch Birlik) tushunchasini Katolik cherkovi bilan bir xil qabul qiladi. Biroq XIII asrdan boshlab ko‘plab ilohiyot mutaxassislari bunga qarshi chiqdilar, shuningdek Susiniylar, Nemislar, Unitarlar va Universalistlar kabi bir qancha yangi guruhlar ham bu tushunchani Muqaddas Injil va aqlga zid deb hisoblaydilar. Suveid Tiragh Trinity ni Masihga berilgan uch belgi sifatida talqin qiladi. U "uchta birlikda" emas, "uchdan bir" haqida gapiradi. Uning tushunishicha, Masihdagi ilohiylik Ota, insoniy bilan birlashgan Masihdagi ilohiylik O‘g‘il, undan chiqqan ilohiylik esa Muqaddas Ruhdir. Ratsionalistlarning protestant va islohotchi cherkovlarga ta’siri ko‘plab nemis ilohiyotchilari orasida Trinity tushunchalarini zaiflashtirdi.
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 hisoblaydiki, Ota, O‘g‘il va Muqaddas Ruh Xudoning uchta asosiy sifatini, ya’ni qudrat, donolik va muhabbatni, yoki uchta asosiy faoliyatini, ya’ni yaratish, himoya qilish va boshqarishni bildiradi. Higgins va Shling Uch Birlik tushunchasiga mavhum asos yaratishga urindilar, ulardan keyin kelgan nemis ilohiyotchilari ham bu tushunchani mavhum yo‘nalishda himoya qilishga harakat qildilar. Muqaddas Bitikka tayanadigan ba’zi ilohiyotchilar Nikeya va Konstantinopol kengashlari belgilagan cherkov yo‘nalishiga qat’iy amal qilmaydilar. Keyingi yillarda ko‘pchilik, ayniqsa, Sabeliylar qarashlarini himoya qilishga urindi.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
Darhaqiqat, endilikda hech bir xristian cherkovi tavhidga asoslangan haq dinga ishonmaydi; ular Uning yagonaligiga, hech narsa va hech kim Unga hech qanday jihatdan o‘xshamasligiga va Uning hech kimni tug‘magani yoki hech kimdan tug‘ilmaganiga ham iqror bo‘lmaydi. Uning ulug‘ligi cheksizdir, poku olijanobdir.
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.
Ko‘pincha ba’zi nasroniy guruhlari, xususan islomiy adabiyotda Arīsīs deb ataladiganlari, Xudoning yagonaligiga ishonganliklari haqida aytiladi. Bunday deyish noto‘g‘ri.
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.
Bu guruh ilohiy dindagidek yakkaxudolik ma'nosida unitar emas. Ularning tushunchalari aralash-quralash. Ular Xudodan farqli o'laroq, Iso Masih abadiy emas, deb ta'kidlaydilar — bu to'g'ri — lekin shu bilan birga uni O'g'il deb da'vo qiladilar va koinotdan oldin Ota tomonidan yaratilgan deb hisoblaydilar. Bularning hech biri Xudoning yagonaligi haqidagi to'g'ri tushunchaga aloqador emas.
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.
Albatta, Xudo tomonidan aniq hukm chiqarilganki, Masih Xudoning o‘g‘lidir, deb aytadigan yoki Masih Xudoning o‘zidir, deb aytadigan yoxud Xudo uch xudodan biridir, deb aytadiganlar kofirdirlar. Bir xil iymon bir vaqtning o‘zida ham imonga, ham kufrga olib kela olmaydi. Hech kim bir vaqtning o‘zida ham mo‘min, ham kofir bo‘la olmaydi.
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.