Al-Baqarah: (61) "And [remember] when you said, 'O Moses...'"

(And [remember] when you said, "O Moses, we can never endure one [kind of] food.") It is apparent that this is included in the enumeration and detail of the blessings, and it is a response to their request with His saying: "Go down [to any city]," etc., while they deserved complete indignation. This is because they were ungrateful for the blessing of having delicious food sent down to them while they were in the wilderness, without toil or labor. By their asking, "We cannot endure," it indicates their dislike for it, for "endurance" (sabrun) means restraining the soul in a state of distress. Therefore, He rebuked them with His saying: "Do you exchange?" etc. Thus, the style of the verse is like His saying: "And when you said, 'O Moses, we will not believe you,'" etc., where they showed stubbornness after hearing the speech and were destroyed, then He showered upon them the blessing of life. Our master Al-Sialkuti said: From this, the weakness of what Imam Al-Razi stated becomes apparent—that if their request were an act of disobedience, He would not have answered them, because answering an act of disobedience is an act of disobedience, which is not permissible for the Prophets. And his saying, "Eat and drink," is a command of permission, not obligation, so their asking for food other than that is not disobedience.

Describing the food as "one," even though there were two—the Manna and the Salwa (quail)—which they were provided in the wilderness, is either in consideration of it being of a single mode, as it is said, "The food of the prince's table is one," even if it consists of various colors, meaning it does not change or differ according to the times; or in consideration of it being a single type, because the Manna and the Salwa are food for those who seek luxury and excess. It is as if the people were farmers, so they desired nothing but what they were accustomed to. It is also said that they used to cook them together, so it became one food. The claim that this statement was before the descent of the "Salwa" is a base claim, and even weaker is the claim that they meant by the "one food" only the "Salwa," because the Manna was a drink or something they sweetened with, so they did not consider it another food. Otherwise, it may be understood that he expressed the two as one, just as he expressed the one as two in such [verses] as, "From both of them emerge pearl and coral," while it emerges only from one of them—the salt [sea], not the fresh.

"So call upon your Lord for us"—that is, ask Him for our sake by your supplication to Him that He may bring forth for us such and such. The "fa" (so) denotes the causality of the inability to endure leading to the supplication. In the dialect of Banu ‘Amir, it is "fa’du" (with a kasra under the 'ayn), as they treat "da’a" as one of the verbs ending in 'ya' (like ramâ). They asked Moses to pray for them because the supplication of the Prophets (peace be upon them) is closer to acceptance than the supplication of others; moreover, the supplication of a person for another in general is closer to acceptance, so what would you think of the supplication of Prophets for their nations? This is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to Umar (may Allah be pleased with him): "Include us in your supplication." And in the tradition: "Call upon Me with tongues with which you have not disobeyed Me," which is interpreted as the tongues of others. The addressing of the title of Lordship is to prepare the foundations for acceptance. They said, "Your Lord," and did not say, "Our Lord," because in that is a specificity to him that is not in them, in terms of his secret discourse (munajat), his speaking to Him, and his being given the Torah. It is as if they said, "Pray for us to the One who has been gracious to you with what He has not been gracious to us; just as He was gracious to you before, we hope He will be gracious to you in answering your prayer."

"That He may bring forth for us from what the earth grows: its herbs, its cucumbers, its garlic, its lentils, and its onions." The intent of "bringing forth" is the metaphorical meaning necessitated by the literal meaning, which is manifestation by way of creation, not by way of removing concealment. To interpret it according to the literal meaning requires that from which it is brought out, and what is suitable here is "the earth." By estimating it as such, the speech becomes absurd. "Yukhrij" (He may bring forth) is jussive because it is the response to a command; its being jussive by a deleted lam of request is not permissible according to the Basrans. The first "min" (from) is partitive—that is, some of what the earth grows as food. Al-Akhfash claimed it is redundant, but that is nothing. "Ma" is a relative noun, and the referent is deleted—that is, "what it grows." Abu al-Baqa did not permit it to be a verbal noun (masdariyah) because the estimated meaning is a substance. Attributing growth to the "earth" is a metaphor from the category of attributing to the receptacle, for Allah has deposited in the muddy layer of the earth, or within it, a power receptive to that. The claim that the receptive power is deposited in the seed rather than the soil might lead to the claim of the pre-eternity of the seed by species. The second "min" is explanatory; the prepositional phrase is established, acting as a state (hal)—that is, being from its "herbs." Abu Hayyan said: It is partitive, acting as a substitute for the word "ma," so the phrase is secondary and linked to "yukhrij." According to both interpretations, as Al-Sialkuti said, it implies that the request is to bring forth some of these. If it were made explanatory, it would not convey what the partitive "min" conveys, as the scholar ‘Isam al-Din said, and the speech would be devoid of the aforementioned benefit and would suggest that the request is to bring forth all of these, due to the lack of a covenant.

"Baqliha" (its herbs) is a genus that includes fresh plants that people and livestock eat; the intent here is the best of the herbs that people eat. "Qiththa’iha" (its cucumbers) is the known vegetable. Al-Khalil said: It is the cucumber. Yahya ibn Wathab and others recited it with a damma on the qaf, which is a dialect. As for "fum" (garlic), most people have made an error in it, to the extent that Al-Zajjaj said: There is no disagreement among the linguists that "fum" is wheat and all grains that are baked; the name "fum" attaches to them. Al-Kisa'i and a group said: It is garlic, and its tha’ has been replaced by a fa, as in "jadatha" and "jadfa." Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) recited it as "fuwmiha" (with a waw), and our sheikh, may Allah have mercy on him, leans toward this. The claim that it is bread is made remote by the fact that it is grown from the "earth" and its mention alongside herbs and others. What is in Al-Ma'alim from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that it is bread can be directed by saying that it means it is called that. The arrangement of the order is that he mentioned first what combines heat, cold, moisture, and dryness, which is herbs, for among them are those that are cold and moist like chicory, and those that are hot and dry like celery and rue, and those that are hot and moist like mint. Secondly, what is cold and moist, which is cucumbers. Thirdly, what is hot and dry, which is garlic. Fourthly, what is cold and dry, which is lentils. Fifthly, what is hot and moist, which is onions, and when cooked, it becomes cold and moist according to some. Or it can be said: He first mentioned what is eaten without the treatment of fire, and mentioned after it what requires treatment with what is appropriate for that and accepts it.

"He said, 'Do you exchange what is better for what is less?'" This is an inauguration that came as a response to a presumed question, as if it were said: "So what did he say to them?" It was said: He said, "Do you exchange," etc. The speaker is either Allah the Exalted on the tongue of Moses (peace be upon him), and this is supported by the fact that the context is the enumeration of blessings, or Moses himself, which is more appropriate for the order of the discourse. The interrogation is for denunciation, and "istibdal" (exchanging) is substitution.

If you say: "The fact that they could not endure 'one kind of food' implies a request to add to it, not to exchange it for it," the response is that their saying, "We cannot endure," indicates their dislike for that food, and lack of gratitude for a blessing is a sign of its cessation; so it is as if they requested its cessation and the arrival of another. It is said that they did request that, and their being addressed with this is an indication that if Allah the Exalted gave them what they asked, He would withhold from them the Manna and the Salwa, so they cannot be combined. It is said that the exchange is in the stomach, and it is as you see. Ubayy recited "atabduna," and it is metaphorical, because the changing is not up to them; it is only up to Allah the Exalted. But since the change was brought about by their request, they were made out to be the ones changing it. The meaning is: "Do you ask for the changing of that which..." "Alladhi" (that which) is the object of "tastabdiluna," which is the existing thing. "Alladhi" to which "ba" is attached is the vanishing thing, which is "adna" (less). The relative clause is here obligatory to be established according to the Basrans, as there is no length. "Adna" is either from dunuw (nearness) or an anagram of al-dun (lowly). On the second, it is apparent; on the first, it is metaphorical, where dunuw is borrowed in the sense of spatial proximity for lowliness, just as distance is borrowed for nobility, so it is said: "A person of distant place" (i.e., high status), "distant ambition." It is possible that it is hamzated, from dana'ah (baseness), and the hamza was replaced by an alif. This is supported by the recitation of Zuhair and Al-Kisa'i: "adna'" with a hamza. By "that which is better" is intended the Manna and the Salwa. The meaning of the superiority of this food compared to that is the highness of its value, the goodness of its taste, the great benefit in consuming it, the lack of burden in obtaining it, and its freedom from suspicion regarding its lawfulness.

"Go down to any city." This is a sentence narrated by the saying, like the first. They were not conjoined one to the other in the narrated text because the first is a report in meaning, while this is not. Being like an explanation of it, the descending is a way of exchanging—this is if both sentences are considered from the speech of Allah the Exalted or the speech of Moses. If one is considered from Moses and the other from Allah the Exalted, the reason for the separation is apparent. The pause at "khabar" is sufficient in the first case and complete in the second. The "descending" can be spatial, that the wilderness was higher than the city, or it can be in rank, which is more appropriate for the context. It was recited "uhbitu" (with a damma on the hamza and ba). "Misr" (a city) is a great city. Its root is the limit and the barrier between two things. He said: "And made the sun a barrier" (misran) to hide between day and night, for they have been separated. Its application to the city is because it is "mamsur," i.e., limited. Taking it from "misratu al-shata amsuruha" (I milked the sheep) if I milked everything in its udder is remote. It is narrated from Ash-hab that he said: Malik said to me: "It is Misr, your city, the dwelling of Pharaoh," so it is a proper noun. The names of places may be considered in terms of location, so they are made masculine, or in terms of being land, so they are made feminine. If it is made a proper noun, then as for its being a city, its declinability with proper noun status and femininity is due to the quiescent middle. If it is considered a country, its declinability is according to its rule, as the single secondary factor is not enough to prevent it from being declined. What Imam Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) said is supported by the fact that in the Mushaf of Ibn Mas'ud, it is "Misr" without an alif after the ra. What makes it remote is that the apparent meaning of the tanwin is indefiniteness, and that His saying, "Enter the Holy Land," means the Levant which Allah the Exalted decreed for you as an obligation, as is indicated by the conjoining of the prohibition; this necessitates the prohibition of entering another land, and that the command to descend is limited to the lands of the wilderness, which is what is between the Holy House to Qinnasrin. There are those who made "Misr" an arabized form of "Misrayim," like Israel, the name of one of the sons of Noah (peace be upon him), and he was the first to mark it out, so it was named after him. Its declinability is permitted then because the non-Arabic origin is not counted due to the arabization and the inflection within it. So understand and contemplate.

"For you have what you asked." This is a justification for the command to descend. In Al-Bahr, it is the response to the command; and just as it is responded to with a verb, it is responded to with a sentence. In it, there are two deletions: what links the sentence to what preceded it, and the pronoun referring back to "ma" (what). The estimation is: "For you have in it what you asked for." Expressing the requested things with "ma" is for the sake of disgust in mentioning them. An-Nakha'i and Yahya recited "sa'altum" with a kasra under the sin.

"And struck upon them are humiliation and poverty." That is, that was made to encompass them like the encompassing of a dome over those upon whom it is struck, or it was stuck to them like the striking of mud on a wall. In the speech, there is a metaphorical metonymy, as it likened that to a dome or mud. "Struck" is a metaphorical, investigative, dependent simile for the meaning of encompassing and inclusion, or adherence and sticking to them. According to both faces, the speech is a metonymy for their being humiliated and lowly. That is by what was struck upon them of the jizya (tax) which they pay while they are humiliated, and by what they were obligated with of showing a specific attire so that it would be known they are Jews and not confused with the Muslims, and by what they were imprinted with of the poverty of the soul and its stinginess—you will not see a sect among the sects more covetous than them—and by what they became accustomed to of showing a bad state for fear that the jizya would be doubled upon them, and other than that which you see in the Jews today. This striking is a recompense for their ingratitude for that blessing, and by this, the verse is connected to what preceded it. The third-person pronoun was brought to indicate that this returns to all Jews and encompasses those addressed by His saying, "For you have what you asked," and those who will come after them until the Day of Resurrection. So it is not from the category of iltifat (shift in person) as some mistakenly thought.

"And they returned with anger from Allah." That is, they settled and became established with what befell them of trials and vengeance in this world, or with what was realized for them of punishment in the Hereafter, or with what was written upon them of calamities in both. Or "returned with anger," i.e., it became upon them, and for this, there was no need to consider the one returned to, or they became worthy of it, or they deserved punishment because of it—and this is remote. The origin of bawa' (return/settlement) is the equality of parts, then it was used for every equality. So it is said: "He is ba' such-and-such," i.e., his equal. From this is "the thong of the sandal of Kulaib," and the hadith: "Let him find his seat (yatabawwa') in the Fire." In describing the anger as being from Allah the Exalted is the glorification of its status after glorification, and majesty after majesty.

"That is because they used to disbelieve in the signs of Allah and kill the prophets without right." With this, he pointed to what preceded of the striking of humiliation and poverty and the returning with great anger. It is distant because some of it is distant, such that if it were a pointer to the return, it would not be in the form of the distant. Or it is to point out that these matters reached them despite their distance from them due to their being People of the Book, or to indicate its distance in atrocity. The "ba" is for causality, and it is entered upon the interpreted source (masdar). He did not express it as such, but expressed it as he did to alert to the renewal of disbelief and killing by them time after time and their persistence in them in the past, or to summon their ugly action. The "signs" are either miracles in general, or the nine that Moses (peace be upon him) brought, or what he brought of the nine and others, or the signs of the recited books in general, or the Torah, or signs within it such as the signs containing the description of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah be pleased with him), or those containing the stoning, or the Quran. In attributing the signs to His name, the Exalted, is an increase in shaming them. He, the Exalted, began with their disbelief in His signs because it is the greatest of all great things, and followed it with their killing of the prophets because it is like an outgrowth of it. He brought the "prophets" (al-nabiyyin), which is apparent in rarity, rather than "the prophets" (al-anbiya'), which is apparent in multitude, as there is a difference between the two plurals when they are indefinite. But when "al" (the) enters them, they are equal, as in Al-Bahr. So it is not a rebuttal that they killed three hundred prophets at the beginning of the day and set up their market at its end. He qualified the killing with "without right," even though the killing of prophets cannot be but that, to intimate that this was "without right" in their view, since no one believed in the rightness of killing any of them (peace be upon them); rather, the love of the world, following desire, excess in disobedience, and aggression drove them to it. The "lam" in "the right" according to this is for the covenant. It is said: The most apparent is that it is for the genus, and the intent is "without any right at all," as the generic "lam" of the vague is like the indefinite. This is supported by what is in Al-Imran, "without right," so it implies that it was not a right in their belief either. It is possible that the benefit of the qualification is to show the defects of their action, for it is the killing of a prophet, then a group of them, then its being without right. This is more in accordance with what is apparent: that the forbidden is killing without right in the reality of the matter, whether it was a right in the killer's view or not. Except that limiting it to "killing without right in their view" is more appropriate for alluding to what they are in, according to what is said. The statement: "It is possible to say that if it were not qualified by 'without right,' it would imply that among the properties of prophecy is that if he kills someone without right, there is no retaliation; so the benefit of the qualification is for the structure to be beneficial for what is the legal ruling" is remote, as is not hidden. Some of the later scholars said: All of this is if the "non" (ghayr) is in the sense of negation, i.e., without right. But if its meaning is "due to a matter alien to the right," i.e., falsehood, the qualification is beneficial because their killing of the prophets was due to falsehood and the protection of it. Close to this is what Al-Qaffal said: That they used to say: "They are liars and their miracles are deceptions," and they would kill them for this reason, and because they wanted to invalidate what they were upon of the "right," in their claim. Perhaps that is the dominant state of their affairs. Otherwise, Isaiah, John, and Zechariah (peace be upon them) were not killed for that. Isaiah was killed because when a king of the Children of Israel died, the matter of the Children of Israel turned chaotic and they competed for kingship and killed one another. He (peace be upon him) forbade them, so they rebelled against him and killed him. John (peace be upon him) was killed only because of the story of that woman, may Allah the Exalted curse her. And likewise, Zechariah, because when his son was killed, he ran away, so the king sent in his pursuit, angered by what happened to his woman from the killing of his son, and he was found in the hollow of a tree, so they split the tree with him into two halves lengthwise with a saw. Furthermore, it is apparent that the prepositional phrase is something that both disbelief and killing compete over. In Al-Bahr, it is that it is linked to what is with Him. Some of the atheists claimed that between this verse and its likenesses and His saying, "We will surely support Our messengers," there is a contradiction. The response is that the killed ones are from among the prophets, and those promised support are the messengers. It was rebutted that His saying, "And whenever there came to you a messenger..." until His saying, "a party [some] you denied and a party [some] you kill," indicates that the killed ones are also messengers. Some answered that the intent is support by the overcoming of argument or the taking of retribution, as narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that Allah the Exalted ordained that for every prophet, seventy thousand would be killed, and for every caliph, thirty-five thousand. It is not hidden what is in that. So the best is that the intent by "messengers" are those commanded to fight, as some of the verifiers answered, because their command to fight and their lack of infallibility does not befit the wisdom of the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) recited "yaqtuluna" with shadda, and Al-Hasan, in one narration from him, "taqtuluna" with ta, so that would be from iltifat. Nafi' recited with hamza "al-nabiyyin" (the prophets), and likewise "nabiy" (prophet) and "nubuwwah" (prophecy). It was problematized by what was narrated that a man said to the Prophet (peace be upon him): "O Nabi' Allah (with hamza)," and he said: "I am not Nabi' Allah (with hamza), but Nabi Allah (without hamza)." So he denounced that for him. For this reason, some forbade its application to him (peace and blessings be upon him). Moreover, it was also problematized that the plural of "nabiy" is "nabiyyin," and it is fa'il in the sense of maf'ul, and they have stated that it is not pluralized as a sound masculine plural. The answer to the first is that Abu Zayd narrated "naba'tu from the earth" if you came out of it, so he forbade it for the illusion that its meaning is "O expelled of Allah," so he forbade him from that for its illusion. And it does not follow from the correctness of Allah's use of it for His Prophet (peace be upon him) who He cleared of every defect that it is permissible for humans. It is said that the prohibition was specific in the beginning of Islam when the plots of the Jews were rampant; this is as he forbade saying "ra'ina" (look at us) to saying "unzurna" (look upon us). As for the second, it is not agreed upon, as it is said: It is in the sense of fa'il (doer). Even if conceded, it has left its original meaning and this was not observed in it, as those who do not know that apply it to him, so its pluralization is correct in consideration of the meaning dominant over it. So contemplate.

"That is because they disobeyed and used to transgress." This is a pointer to the disbelief and killing that occurred as a cause for what preceded. It is permissible for the pointer to be singular for a plural because of the interpretation as "the mentioned" or similar, which is singular in word and plural in meaning. Such may occur in the pronoun, carrying it upon that. The "ba" is for causality, and what is after it is the cause of the cause. The meaning is: That which drove them to disbelief in the signs of Allah the Exalted and their killing of the prophets is only their prior disobedience and transgression and their exceeding the limits. A sin drags a sin. He emphasized the first because it is a place of improbability, unlike absolute disobedience. It is said: The "ba" is in the sense of "with." It is said: The pointer "that" is to what was pointed to by the first, and the conjunction was omitted to indicate that each one of them is independent in deserving the striking [of humiliation], so how if they were combined? This face was weakened because repetition is against the original, with the loss of a subtle meaning obtained by the first. The response to it is that if so, the word "that" would have no benefit, for the apparent is "because they disobeyed," etc. Also, what is lost is lost. The portion of the gnostic from these verses is taking heed of the state of those who were not content with the decree, did not thank for the blessings, and did not endure the trials; how the humiliation of tyranny was struck upon them before the existence of the worlds, and they were subdued by the slap of poverty in the wilderness of abandonment, and they were clothed with the love of the world, and they were cast down from the high degree.

(And from the door of allusion): The "one food" is the spiritual nourishment of wisdom and knowledge. What the earth grows is the foul desires, the base pleasures, and the cold amusements arising from the earth of the debased souls in the "city" of the body, causing humiliation to the one who tastes it, poverty to the one who chews it, and destruction to the one who swallows it. The cause of requesting that is being veiled from the signs of Allah the Exalted and His manifestations, the blackening of hearts with the filth of sins, and the severing of their artery and their supply. That which leads to this is heedlessness of the Beloved and substituting that desired [Goal] with others. We ask Allah the Exalted for us and for you wellness.