6.147. So if they give the lie to thee (Muhammad), say: Your Lord is a Lord of all embracing mercy, and His wrath will never be withdrawn from guilty folk. (Pickthall)
6.147. Und wenn sie dich der Lüge bezichtigen, so sag: Euer Herr ist voller weitreichender Barmherzigkeit, und Sein Elend wird nicht abgewendet vom Volk der Verbrecher! (Ahmad v. Denffer)
6.147. Wenn sie dich nun der Lüge bezichtigen, dann sag: Euer Herr ist voll umfassender Barmherzigkeit, aber vom übeltätigen Volk wird Seine Gewalt nicht abgewandt. (Bubenheim)
6.147. Wenn sie dich der Lüge bezichtigen, sag ihnen: "Euer Herr ist unendlich barmherzig, aber Seine unabwendbare Strafe trifft die Verbrecher gewiß." (Azhar)
6.147. Und sollten sie dich des Lügens bezichtigen, dann sag: ‚Euer HERR verfügt über allumfassende Gnade. Doch Seine Peinigung ist von den schwer verfehlenden Leuten nicht abhaltbar.‘ (Zaidan)
6.147. Wenn sie dich nun der Lüge zeihen, dann sag: Euer Herr ist (zwar) in weitem Ausmaß barmherzig. Aber vom Volk der Sünder wird seine Gewalt (ba's) nicht abgewandt. (Paret)
6.147. Wenn sie dich aber der Lüge bezichtigen, so sprich: "Euer Herr ist von allumfassender Barmherzigkeit, doch Seine Strenge soll nicht vom verbrecherischen Volk abgewendet werden. (Rasul)
Tafsir von Maududi für die Ayaat 145 bis 147
O Muhammad, say to them, "I do not find in what has been revealed to me anything forbidden to an eater to eat except that it be carrion or the blood that has been shed or the flesh of swine, for it is unclean, or flesh of an animal that has become profane because of having been slaughtered in any other name than that of Allah. ( 121 ) But if one is forced in a case of certain helplessness.(to eat any of these) without any intention of disobedience, and without transgressing the limit of absolute necessity, (he will find that) your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful." And We prohibited to those people, who had adopted Judaism, all animals with claws and the fat of oxen and goats except what is on their backs or their entrails or what sticks to their bones; this was the punishment We had inflicted on them for their rebellion. ( 122 ) And We are telling the truth. Now if they belie you, say to them, "Your Lord has limitless mercy: but His punishment cannot be warded off from the criminals." ( 123 )
Desc No: 121 This subject has already been dealt with in v. 173, AI-Baqarah, and in v. 3, Al-Ma`idah, and will be further discussed in v. 115, An-Nahl below. There appears to be a little difference in the wording of this verse and that of v. 173, Al-Baqarah. In the latter verse it is simply `blood' that is forbidden, but in this verse it is the `blood' that has been shed, when an animal is wounded or slaughtered. The addition of the word masfuh (that has been shed) merely explains the nature of the `blood' and does not make any difference in the "Commandment" itself. Likewise in v. 3 of Al-Ma'idah, some other things besides these four have also been mentioned-the animals that have been strangled or beaten to death, or killed by a fall, or mangled by a beast of prey. This, too, does not make any difference in the "Commandment" in the two verses, because this is an explanation which shows that the animals which are killed in that way should also be considered as "carrion." Now let us consider the various opinions of the Jurists. Hadrat `Abdullah bin `Abbas and Hadrat `A'ishah were of the opinion that, out of the animal food, only these four were unlawful and all others were lawful. But there are several Traditions to the effect that the Holy Prophet prohibited other animals besides these four or held them in detestation, e.g., domestic donkeys and fanged beasts of prey and birds with claws. Therefore most jurists do not consider the prohibition to be confined to these four things only, but extend it to others; then there is also a difference of opinion among the jurists about the prohibition or otherwise of certain animals. For instance, Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik and Imam Shafi`i declare the domestic donkey to be unlawful, but there are others who assert that the domestic donkey, is not unlawful and say that it was prohibited by the Holy Prophet on one occasion only for some special reason. The Hanafi s consider the carnivorous beasts and birds of prey and the animals that live on dead flesh to be absolutely unlawful, but according to Imam Malik and Auza`i, the birds of prey are lawful and Laith considers the cat to be lawful. According to Imam Shafi i. only those carnivorous beasts are unlawful that (like the lion, wolf, tiger) attack man. According to ' Ikrimah, the crow and the badger are both lawful. Then according to the Hanafi s, all crawling creatures are unlawful, whereas Ibn AbiLaila, Imam Malik and Auza' i consider the snake to be lawful. A careful and critical study of the above makes it quite clear that, in reality, only these four things mentioned in the Qur'an are unlawful and that there are certain other animal foods that are detestable in various degrees. Therefore those things, which according to authentic Traditions were held in detestation by the Holy Prophet, are almost unlawful, but those things about which there is a difference of opinion among the jurists, their detestation is doubtful. As far as personal detestation of certain things by some people is concerned, the Islamic Law does not compel anyone to eat what one dislikes. The same applies to the detestation of certain things by some groups or nations. Conversely, the Law does not allow any person or community or nation to force others to consider as unlawful anything that they detest, or to .prohibit its use to those who consider them unlawful.
Desc No: 122 That certain things were made unlawful for them as punishment for their rebellion has been mentioned in the Qur'an at three places: (1) "All the articles of food, which are lawful in the Muhammadan Law, were also lawful for the children of Israel, except those which Israel had forbidden for himself before the Torah was sent down. Say to them, Bring the Torah and read out any passage from it (in support of your objection), if you are in the right. " (Al- `Imran, 111): (2) "It is because of the criminal attitude of those who became Jews...... that We had made unlawful many pure things which were formerly lawful for them". (An-Visa' IV:160) (3) Here in this Surah, in verse 146. From the above three verses, we conclude that the difference between the Muhammadan and the Jewish Laws in regard to the legality or otherwise of animal food is based on two things. First, centuries before the revelation of the Torah, the Prophet Jacob (Israel) had given up the use of several things, and after him, his offspring also did the same. This went on for such a long time that the jurists of the Jewish Law began to believe that those things were unlawful in their religion. Accordingly, they inserted in the Torah the prohibition of those things, the three of which were the camel, the hare and the Coney. That is why the Torah, as contained in the existing Bible prohibits their eating. (Levit. 11: 4-6 and Deut. 14:7). But, the open challenge of the Qur'an to them to bring the Torah in proof thereof shows that the commandments referred to above did not exist in the Torah at that time and were inserted afterwards; otherwise the Jews would have at once accepted the challenge of the Qur'an and presented the commandments thereof. The second difference between the two laws was caused by the rebellious attitude of the Jews against the Divine Law. They became their own law-makers and made many things unlawful by their hair-splitting and Allah let them remain involved in that misunderstanding as a punishment. These things comprise two categories : (1) Animals with claws such as the ostrich, the cuckoo, the swan, etc., and (2) the fat of the cow and the goat, etc. Afterwards both kinds of "prohibitions" were incorporated in the existing Torah. (Levit. 11 : 16-18, Deut. 14 : 14-17, Levit. 3 : 17, 7 : 22-23). But it is obvious from An - Nisa, IV : 160 that at first these things were not unlawful i the Torah, but were made so after the Prophet Jesus Christ. History also bears evidence that the existing Jewish Law was formulated by Rabbi Judas at the end of the second century of the Christian Era. Now let us consider the objection that might arise regarding the above explanation. If these things were made unlawful in the manner explained above, why has, then, Allah used the word harramna ("We prohibited") here in verse 130 and in verse 160 of An-Nisa? In considering the objection, we should keep in mind the two ways in which things are made unlawful by Allah. (1) He prohibits a thing through a Messenger and a Book, and this is the blessing from Him. (2) He sets false religious law-givers and counterfeit law-makers over His rebellious servants and they declare pure things as unlawful. As such a prohibition' is the curse of God and a punishment from Him, it has been attributed to Him.
Desc No: 123 That is, "Your Lord has limitless Mercy and if even now you repent of your disobedience and adopt the right way of obedience, He will forgive you. But if you persist in your criminal and rebellious attitude, you should note it well that none will be, able to ward off His wrath and punishment from you. " "
){kind=link}