Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:153

They ask you, O Muhammad, (the People of the Scripture)—those who differentiated between the messengers—(to bring down for them a book from the heaven). They said: "Moses, peace be upon him, brought the tablets from Allah, the Exalted. So, bring us tablets from Him." They demanded that the revelation be sent down all at once and that it be in divine handwriting. This is narrated from Muhammad ibn Ka'b al-Qurazi and al-Saddi.

From Qatadah, it is reported that they asked him to bring down a book specifically for them. Similar to this is what Ibn Jarir recorded from Ibn Jurayj, who said: The Jews said to Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him): "We will not pledge allegiance to you regarding what you invite us to until you bring us a book from Allah, the Exalted, to so-and-so saying, 'You are the messenger of Allah,' and to so-and-so saying, 'You are the messenger of Allah.'" Their intention in this was only to be obstinate and recalcitrant. Al-Hasan said: "Had they asked him for this seeking guidance rather than out of obstinacy, he would have granted them what they asked."

(For they had asked Moses, peace be upon him, for a thing—or a question—greater than that) which has been mentioned, and more immense. The Fa in the conditional response is implicit, and the answer is interpreted to ensure the sequence, meaning: If you find this [behavior] arrogant and have come to know what they were upon, it will become clear to you how deeply rooted they are in disbelief. It is also said that it is causal, and the meaning is: Do not pay heed and do not find it arrogant, for they have asked Moses, peace be upon him, for that which is greater. Even though this questioning originated from their ancestors, because they were upon their [ancestors'] path in everything they did and left, it is attributed to them. Some investigators considered it an instance of attributing the cause to the effect. It is also permissible that it is from the category of attributing the action of the part to the whole, based on the completeness of their union, like the [verse]: "My people, they are the ones who killed my brother Umaym / So if you shoot, my arrow hits me." Thus, the intention behind the pronoun "they asked" is the entirety of the People of the Scripture, because the question originated from some of them, and the intention behind "the People of the Scripture" is also the entirety [of them]. Therefore, the attribution of "asking you" to the People of the Scripture is from that same type of attribution. It is also possible that the intention is this class [of people], and the intention is to explain their ugliness; thus, there is no burden or metaphor required, neither regarding the pronoun nor the referent.

You know that attributing the action of a part to the whole is familiar in the Noble Book and occurs in roughly a thousand places.

Al-Hasan recited "greater" (akthar) with the tha.

(So they said, "Show us Allah") who sent you (openly) (jahratan), meaning: while observing and witnessing Him. It is in the position of a state (hal) from the first object, as Abu al-Baqa' said. It is also possible that it is a state from the second object, meaning: "being witnessed," in the passive form, and there is no confusion in this, as each of them necessitates the other. Therefore, it is not said that it must be a state from the second object due to its proximity. It is also permissible that it is an adjective for an omitted verbal noun, which is "the vision," not "the showing," because jahrah (openness) in linguistic books is an adjective for the former, not the latter. So it is said: The estimation is "Show us Him, a vision of openness." It is said that the described verbal noun is estimated as "a request," meaning: "a request of openness," or "a speech," meaning: "a speech of openness." This is supported by what Ibn Jarir and Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), that he said regarding the verse: "If they see Him, they have seen Him; they only said 'openly, show us Allah, the Exalted,'" so it is a case of precedence and postponement, and there is remoteness in that. The Fa is explanatory.

(So the thunderbolt seized them) i.e., destroyed them, when they asked him and said what they said. (And it is a fire that came from heaven).

Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Ibn Jurayj: The sa'iqah (thunderbolt) is death; Allah, the Exalted, caused them to die before their appointed times as a punishment for their speech, for as long as Allah, the Exalted, willed them to die, and then He resurrected them. There is hesitation regarding the confirmation of this.

Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) read it as al-sa'qah.

(For their wrongdoing), i.e., because of their wrongdoing, which is their obstinacy and their asking for what is impossible in that state they were in. The rejection of the disbelievers' request for vision out of obstinacy does not necessitate its impossibility absolutely. Al-Zamakhshari used this verse as proof for its absolute impossibility, basing this on the premise that the wrongdoing attributed to them was solely because they requested vision. Then he said: "Had they requested a permissible thing, they would not have been called wrongdoers, and the thunderbolt would not have seized them, just as Abraham, peace be upon him, asked for the revival of the dead, yet he was not called a wrongdoer, nor did the thunderbolts fall upon him." Then he thundered and lightened and cursed the claimant of the permissibility of vision with what he is more worthy of.

You know that the man was overcome by passion and was heedless of the fact that the Jews only asked out of obstinacy, and they did not consider the miracle as such—for miracles are equal in their ability to provide proof, and that is sufficient for them to be considered wrongdoers. Drawing a parallel to the request of Abraham, peace be upon him, is one of the most astonishing things, as is not hidden from those of intellect.

(Then they took the calf) and worshipped it. (After the clear proofs had come to them), i.e., the miracles that He showed to Pharaoh, such as the staff, the white hand, the parting of the sea, and others, or the clear proofs indicating His divinity, the Exalted, and His oneness—not the Torah, for it was only sent down to them after they had taken [the calf]. (So We pardoned that) taking, when they repented. In this, as it is said, is an invitation for them toward the Torah; it is as if it were said: "Those who committed crimes repented, so We pardoned them; you too repent, so that We may pardon you."

(And We gave Moses a clear authority), i.e., a manifest dominion over them when He commanded them to kill their own souls as a repentance for their taking [the calf]. This, as is said, even if it was before the pardon, for the command for killing was before the repentance, since the acceptance of killing was a repentance for them. However, the waw (and) does not necessitate order. It has been argued that this dominion should not be that dominion, but rather a dominion after the pardon, where they became submissive to him and were unable to disobey him after that.