وما ظن الذين يفترون على الله الكذب يوم القيامة إن الله لذو (10:60) بالانجليزي

(10:60) Think how those who invent lies against Him will be treated on, the Day of Judgement? Allah is bountiful to men yet most of them do not give thanks. *63

Tafseer Abu-al-A'la Maududi

Page 215 English Traditional

*60). The word rizq is often used in daily parlance to denote 'eatables'. Hence, many people think that the reproach embodied in the present verse is directed merely against the wrong customs that have come into vogue in that narrow realm of behaviour which is confined to the dining room. It is not only those who are ignorant but also those who are learned about Islam that are victims of this misconception.
However, use of the word rizq in Arabic is not confined to eatables. It is used in a broad sense, and covers all the things that are granted to man by God for his use. Whatever God has conferred on man thus constitutes his rizq, including his offspring. In the works of the branch of knowledge called Asma al-Rijal (which is part of the Hadith Sciences), we find, among the transmitters of traditions, several names such as Rizq, Ruzayq, and Rizq Allah which signify the recipients of God's bounty. In the famous invocative prayer ****. 'O God: Show us the truth and grant us the strength (urzuqna) to follow it', the rizq that a person seeks from God is the strength to follow the truth after God has enabled him to perceive it. Here rizq has been used to mean the conferment of the bounty of knowledge on someone. In a tradition we have been told that Allah sends an angel to the womb of every expectant mother and that he writes down what the rizq, the life-span, and deeds of the to-be-born child are to be (see al-Bukhari, Kitab Bad' al-Khalq, Bad Dhikr al-Mala' ikah -Ed.). It is quite obvious that the word rizq here does not signify merely the eatables that child will receive during its life-lime; it rather signifies the totality of the things that it will receive. We also find the expression ****j in the Qur'an. (See al-Baqarah 2: 3; al-Anfal 8: 3 - Ed.)
It is, therefore, a serious mistake to consider rizq as being confined to the realm of the kitchen and the dining table. Likewise, it is a mistake, and quite a serious one to think that God disapproves only if those rules in the domain of food are broken and does not mind if people do so in other domains of life.
The error that people so commit has very grave consequences. As a result of this misconception, an important principle of Islam has been lost sight of. For it is owing to this misconception that while lawfulness or otherwise in regard to eating and drinking is considered a seriously religious issue, even highly religious people, let alone ordinary Muslims, feel no serious repugnance about the notion that in the collective sphere of life man has the right to lay down the rules of his behaviour. Even the most learned and pious religious scholars feel no revulsion against legislating without reference to God and His Book. Nor do they feel that such legislation is as sharply in conflict with Islam as one's laying down what is lawful and what is unlawful in matters of food and drink.
*61). The purpose of the verse is to make people realize what an enormous act of rebellion people are committing by laying down, of their own accord, the limits that are lawful and those that are unlawful. Are they not conscious of the fact that human beings and all that they possess belong to Allah? If they are conscious of it, how can it be considered justifiable for men to lay down as to how they should use the possessions bestowed upon them by Allah? What would their own opinion be about the servant who claims that he has the full right to lay down the rules for the disposal of his master's property, and who believes that his master has no right to determine anything? Were a person's own servant to make such a claim about his master, how would the latter react to it? As for the servant who goes so far as even to deny that he is a servant or denies that he is answerable to a master, or who denies that the property under his care belongs to his master, he is guilty of an even greater monstrosity, and is beyond the scope of our discussion here. What is being discussed is the case of one who, on the one hand, acknowledges that he is the servant of a master and that the property in his possession has been entrusted to him by the master, and rightfully belongs to the master. Notwithstanding this acknowledgement, the servant claims that he has the right to lay down, independently of the master, the rules for using that properly.
*62). If the master had authorized the servant to use his property as the latter wished and to lay down the rules for so doing as he pleased, the servant, would have been justified in doing so. But do these people really have any evidence to prove that they had been granted any such authorization by their master? Or is it that such a claim was backed by no such authorization? If they do nut have any evidence to produce such an authorization, they are guilty not only of rebellious behaviour, but also of lies and fabrications.
*63). It is indeed an act of utmost favour on the part of the master that he informs his servant of the attitude he should adopt to the master's house and to other belongings and even with regard to his own self as he is able to obtain God's good pleasure and how he would be able to escape his wrath and punishment, But many servants are not sufficiently grateful to their master for this favour. It seems that the right thing would have been for the master to have left his properties at the servant's disposal without informing him of what would lead to reward and what would lead to punishment. He should then have kept a secret watch over his servants and punished those who work contrary to his desire - a desire which had not even been made known to them. The fact is that if the master had put his servants to such a severe test none would have escaped his punishment.