Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:243

This expression may be addressed to one whose knowledge is already established, serving as an expression of wonder, confirmation, or a reminder to those familiar with the coming account, such as the learned scholars and historians. It may also be addressed to one who is not familiar with it, serving to inform and astonish him. It has become so proverbial in this regard that the state of one who has "not seen" the matter is likened to the state of one who has seen it, implying that it should not be hidden from him and that he ought to be astonished by it. The discourse is then conducted with him just as it is with one who has seen it, aimed at emphasizing its fame and deep-rooted nature in causing wonder.

"Seeing" (Ru'yah) is either in the sense of ocular vision—used metaphorically for looking (Nazar)—and the benefit of this metaphor is to urge reflection, since looking is a voluntary act, unlike the perception (Idrak) that follows it. Or, it is in the sense of mental perception, encompassing the meaning of reaching and attaining; this is why it is linked with the particle ila (to) in the Almighty’s saying: "to those..." (ila alladhina), as stated by more than one scholar. Al-Raghib said: The verb is one that usually takes its object directly, but since it was borrowed to mean "have you not looked," it was constructed with ila. The benefit of this is that looking may imply more than simple seeing; when the intent is to urge a look that leads inevitably to realization, the verb for "seeing" is borrowed for it. This is rarely used except in the context of confirmation; one does not say "I looked to such-and-such."

Some have noted that the expression may, according to this meaning, take its object directly, though few have pointed this out, such as the poet Imru’ al-Qays: "Did you not see [or look at]... whenever I came as a night visitor, I found in her grace, yet she did not deck herself in finery."

The "those" refers to the people of a village called Dawardan, near Wasit. They "went forth from their homes" fleeing from the plague or from Jihad, when they were called to it. "While they were thousands, in fear of death," they numbered more than ten thousand, according to what most have concluded, based on the principle that one does not say "ten thousand" or "nine thousand" [in this specific construction], but rather alaf (thousands). Thus, the statements of 'Ata' al-Khurasani that they were three thousand, Ibn Abbas (in one narration) that they were four thousand, Muqatil and al-Kalbi that they were eight thousand, Abu Salih that they were nine thousand, and Abu Ru'fah that they were ten thousand are not supported by this linguistic usage. Those who argued for "more than" differed: some said they were thirty-odd thousand, as narrated from al-Saddi. It is reported from Ibn Abbas that they were forty thousand, and 'Ata' ibn Abi Rabah said they were seventy thousand. I do not see any fruit in this disagreement once "a great multitude" is established, and the words of al-Dahhak lean towards this.

It is narrated from Ibn Zayd that the meaning of "went forth" is that their hearts were united—they did not go forth out of hatred—treating alaf as a collective noun, like qa'id and qu'ud (sitter/sitters) or shahid and shuhud (witness/witnesses). This is contrary to the apparent meaning and lacks significant reflection, for the occurrence of death collectively—as indicated by the Almighty’s saying: "And God said to them, 'Die'"—upon a great multitude is more effective for reflection. As for its occurrence upon a people who had unity, it is just like its occurrence upon anyone else. Such an interpretation—that it means their union and love for their homes or for their worldly life—is forced.

The Almighty’s saying ("And God said to them, 'Die'") is either literal or a metaphor for the attachment of the Divine Will to their simultaneous death. It is said: It is a representation of His causing them to die the death of a single soul, in the nearest time, the shortest moment, the fastest pace, and the most fleeting instant, by a command that is obeyed for a subject that obeys. It is also said: An angel called out to them with that. According to al-Saddi, the caller was two angels, and it was attributed to the Almighty to inspire fear and dread.

"Then He revived them"—this is a conjunction to an implied [clause] necessitated by the context, meaning: "So they died, then He revived them." It is said that it was omitted because there is no need to mention it, due to the impossibility of the Almighty’s intent failing to follow His existential Will. It is also permissible that it is a conjunction to the [omitted] "die," since "die" is an expression of the act of causing death.

It is well-known that they remained dead for a period until their bones scattered. Then, Ezekiel—the famous son of the old woman, the successor to Caleb the son of Jephunneh, the successor to Joshua the son of Nun (some say Simeon, and this is reported from Ibn Abbas)—passed by them. It is said that he was Samuel, who is Dhu al-Kifl, and some say it was Joshua himself. He stood in wonder at the multitude he saw of them. Then God revealed to him: "Call out, 'O you bones, God commands you to assemble.'" They assembled until they adhered to one another, becoming bodies of bone without flesh or blood. Then God revealed to him: "Call out, 'O you bodies, God commands you to be clothed with flesh.'" They were clothed in flesh. Then God revealed to him: "Call out, 'God commands you to rise.'" They were raised alive, saying: "Glory be to You, our Lord, and with Your praise; there is no god but You." The narrations in this regard are many.

It is apparent that they did not witness, in this death, the terrors and states that would make their knowledge necessary, thereby preventing the validity of religious obligation (taklif) after their revival, as is the case in the Hereafter. It is possible to say that they saw what the dead see, but forgot it after their return; and He who is able to cause death and life is able to cause forgetfulness. Glory be to Him who is not defeated by anything. In either case, the death of these people twice in this world does not conflict with the Almighty’s saying: "They will not taste death therein [in Paradise] except the first death," because this [instance in the story] was not a result of completing their appointed terms, as Mujahid said; rather, it was a death of punishment, so it is as if it were not "death." Furthermore, it is one of the miraculous breaches of custom, so it does not count as a refutation.

Some have said: This was not death in the sense of the death that is followed by life for resurrection; rather, it was a type of disconnection of the spirit from the body such that change and corruption affect it. It is beyond the ailment of stroke or severe fainting, such that a skilled observer, if he saw it, would not doubt the total disconnection, not knowing that some attachment remained, though it did not reach the level of life known to us. Perhaps this view returns in the end to a classification of death, or to the idea that the application of "death" to what was mentioned is metaphorical. Both matters leave something—indeed many things—in the heart.

Ibn al-Rawandi adopted a similar view regarding all the dead, saying: Spirits never depart from bodies at all; rather, occurrences and illnesses happen to the bodies, causing the separation of their parts, just as happens to lepers, and the spirit remains hidden within the scattered parts wherever they are, because it is devoid of sensation and perception. This is a doctrine that necessity dictates we reject; may God protect us and the Muslims from believing such a thing.

"Indeed, God is full of bounty to the people"—all of them. As for those [who were revived], He revived them so they might reflect and thereby attain happiness. As for those who heard [the account], He guided them to reflect. This is like a justification for what preceded it.

"But most of the people are not grateful"—this is a correction of what the preceding text implied; the meaning is: "It is incumbent upon them to be grateful for His bounty, but..." etc. It is also permissible that "gratitude" here implies insight and reflection, though its distance [from the literal meaning] is not hidden. The use of the noun in the place of the pronoun is for the sake of greater denunciation. The relevance of this passage to what preceded it is that when the Almighty mentioned a collection of legal rulings containing mention of some laws regarding the dead, He followed it with this amazing story as a warning of His great power, and that He is the One capable of revival and resurrection for recompense, and to spur the determination to work for the Hereafter, fulfill rights, and endure hardships.

It is also said: The aspect of the relationship is that when the Almighty mentioned, "Thus God makes clear to you His signs, that you might understand," He mentioned this story because it is one of His greatest signs and wonders of His power. It is also said: God made this story, because of the encouragement it contains for the Muslims regarding Jihad, exposing oneself to martyrdom, and the urging of reliance and submission to the Decree, as a prelude to the Almighty’s saying...