Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:61

Al-Baqarah (The Cow): Verse 61

Textual Variations (Qira'at):

• The well-known reading of تَنبُتُ (grows) is with a ḍammah on the yā’ and a kasrah on the rā’, and a ḍammah on the first tā’ and a kasrah on the second tā’.
• Zayd ibn ‘Alī read it with a fatḥah on the yā’ and a ḍammah on the rā’, and تَنبُتُ with a fatḥah on the tā’ and a ḍammah on the bā’.

The Issue of Sinfulness in Asking for Different Food:

• Most literalists (Ẓāhirīyyūn) among the exegetes claimed that this request was a sin.
• We (the author/Mufassir) hold that this is not the case.
• Evidence: The preceding verse, {Eat and drink} (referring to the Manna and Quail), is permissive (ibāḥah), not obligatory.
• If permission was granted for one type of food, it is permissible to ask for another, either directly or through the Prophet.
• Since they believed that asking Moses to supplicate would bring the answer closer to acceptance, their action was permissible and not a sin.

Possible Motivations for Requesting Different Food:

1. Boredom: After consuming that single type of food for forty years, they grew weary of it and desired something else.
2. Innate Habit: Perhaps they were not naturally accustomed to that type of food and were accustomed to other kinds. Human desire often favors what was familiar from their upbringing, even if it is lowly, over what is unfamiliar, even if it is noble.
3. Desire for Settlement: Perhaps they were tired of wandering in the wilderness (tīh) and asked for foods only found in settled lands, with their true goal being reaching the lands, not the food itself.
4. Physiological Need: Constant consumption of one food type can lead to diminished appetite, weak digestion, and reduced desire. Consuming varied types helps strengthen appetite and increase enjoyment.

Conclusion on Permissibility:

• Changing one type of food for another can be a rational objective.
• There is nothing in the Qur'an indicating they were forbidden from asking.
• Therefore, this act cannot be considered a sin.
• Reinforcing Evidence: The Almighty's response, {Go down to a city, for there you will have what you asked for}, is like an acceptance of their request. If their request were sinful, granting it would also be sinful, which is impossible for Prophets.
• Counter-argument: One might say they were given what they asked for immediately because they rejected what God chose for them, similar to {Whoever desires the harvest of this world - We give him thereof} (Ash-Shūrā: 20).
• Rebuttal: This contradicts the apparent meaning.

Arguments Claiming the Request Was a Sin (and their Refutations):

1. Argument 1: Their statement, {We will never endure one kind of food}, indicates displeasure with the Manna and Quail, and displeasure with God's provision is a sin.
   • Refutation: Their statement only indicates a desire for something else; it does not necessarily mean they were displeased with what they currently had. Furthermore, the word لَن (never) refers to the future, so it does not necessarily imply dissatisfaction with the present state.
2. Argument 2: Moses' statement, {Do you exchange that which is better for that which is inferior?}, is a form of reproachful questioning, indicating sinfulness.
   • Refutation: Reproachful questioning can be used for something that results in missing a benefit in this world, or missing a benefit in the Hereafter.
3. Argument 3: Moses described what they asked for as adna (inferior) and what they had as khayr (better), supporting the view that it was a sin.
   • Refutation: Similar to the above, something can be described as "better" because its benefit is immediate and certain, or because it is obtained effortlessly. Conversely, something can be described as "inferior" because its attainment is uncertain or requires effort. Moses might have meant that the Manna/Quail was superior because it was certain and effortless, while the desired food was inferior because it was uncertain or required labor.

Conclusion: The request was not a sin, but a permissible inquiry.

Consequence of Sin (The Punishment):

• Therefore, the statement {And they were covered with humiliation and neediness, and they incurred the wrath of God} cannot be due to the request for food.
• It must be due to what follows: {That was because they used to disbelieve the signs of God and kill the prophets unjustly}. God afflicted them with humiliation and wrath because of their disbelief, not because they asked for food.

• The phrase {We will never endure one kind of food} does not mean one type (naw‘), but rather one method or pattern (nahj). It is like saying a person's meal is "one meal" if it never deviates from its established manner.

• The Known Reading: وَقِثَّائِهَا (wa-qiththā’ihā) with a kasrah on the qāf. Al-A‘mash and Ṭalḥah read وَقُثَّائِهَا (wa-quṯṯā’ihā) with a ḍammah on the qāf.
• The Known Reading for Garlic/Onion: وَفُومِهَا (wa-fūmihā) with a fā’.
• Alternative Reading: From ‘Alqamah, from Ibn Mas‘ūd, and also read by Ibn ‘Abbās: وَثُومِهَا (wa-thūmihā) with a thā’.
• Difference in Meaning of Fūm:
  • Ibn ‘Abbās reported two views: (1) It means wheat (ḥinṭah). (2) It means bread. This second view is also narrated from Mujāhid, ‘Aṭā’, and Ibn Zayd. Some Arabs used the phrase fūmū lanā meaning "bake bread for us."
  • Another view is that it means garlic (thūm). This is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid, and is the preferred view of Al-Kisā’ī.
• Arguments for Garlic (Thūm):
  1. It matches the reading in the manuscript of ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd (وَثُومِهَا).
  2. If it meant wheat, it would not be appropriate to say, {Do you exchange that which is inferior for that which is better?}, as wheat is one of the noblest foods.
  3. Garlic is more suitable to be mentioned alongside lentils and onions than wheat is.

• The Known Reading: أَتَسْتَبْدِلُونَ (A-tastabdilūna). In the manuscript of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, it is read أَتَبْدِلُونَ (A-tabdilūna) with a quiescent bā’. Zuhayr Al-Farqabī read أَدْنَا (adnā) with a hamza, derived from danā’ah (baseness).
• Meaning of Adnā (Inferior): The saying is understood in two ways: either inferior in religious benefit or inferior in worldly benefit.
  • It cannot mean religiously inferior, because if what they had was religiously better than what they requested, God would not have granted their request (as He did with {Go down to a city...}).
  • Therefore, it must refer to worldly benefit.
  • It cannot mean that the food they had was intrinsically better than the food they requested, as what is most delicious to one group may be the basest to another.
  • The intended meaning is: The Manna and Quail were certain to be obtained, whereas what they requested was uncertain. The certain is better than the uncertain.
  • Alternatively: The Manna/Quail was obtained without toil, while the other required effort. Thus, the former was superior.
• Objection: They could argue that something naturally disliked, even if obtained effortlessly, is harder to consume than something desired, even if it requires toil.
• Response: Even if there is a conflict from this perspective, the certainty of the present outweighs the uncertainty of the future/absent.

• The Known Reading: اهْبِطُوا (Ihbiṭū) with a kasrah on the bā’. It is also read with a ḍammah on the bā’.
• The Famous Reading of Egypt: مِصْرًا (Miṣran) with tanwīn (indefinite). It is made diptote (without tanwīn) despite having two reasons for being diptote (being proper noun and feminine) because its middle letter is quiescent, like in {And to Noah We guided... and to Lot} (Al-An‘ām: 84, 86), where both words are foreign and proper nouns, yet the second is diptote because it has only one reason (being foreign).
• Reading without Tanwīn: In the manuscript of ‘Abdullāh and read by Al-A‘mash: اهْبِطُوا مِصْرَ (Ihbiṭū Miṣra) without tanwīn, like {Enter Egypt}.

Exegesis of {Go down to Egypt}:

• View 1 (No Tanwīn): Narrated from Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ubayy ibn Ka‘b. Al-Ḥasan said the alif in Miṣrā is an extra letter from the scribe, meaning it is definite and must refer to the specific city where Pharaoh was. This is narrated from Abū ‘Āliyah and Al-Rabī‘.
• View 2 (Tanwīn Present - Famous Reading):
  • Some say it refers to Pharaoh's city, and the tanwīn is present for the same reason it appears in Noah and Lot (i.e., being foreign).
  • Others say it means: "Enter any city," as if saying, "Enter a city, any city, and you will find these things there."
• Disagreement on Whether it is Pharaoh's City:
  • Many exegetes argue it cannot be the city where they were with Pharaoh.
  • Evidence (from {Enter the Holy Land which God has decreed for you...} - Al-Mā’idah: 21):
    1. The command {Enter the Holy Land} implies an obligation to enter that land, prohibiting entry into another.
    2. The phrase {The decree of God} implies their permanent residence there.
    3. The prohibition {and do not turn back on your heels} explicitly forbids returning from Jerusalem.
    4. God commanded them to enter the Holy Land, then stated they would wander for forty years. When the impediment was removed, entering the land became obligatory. Thus, Miṣr cannot mean other than the Holy Land.
  • Objection to the Evidence:
    • The command {Enter the Holy Land} might be for recommendation (nadb), not obligation, meaning they were not forbidden from entering Egypt.
    • The prohibition {do not turn back on your heels} might not mean returning to Egypt, but rather disobeying commands (as Arabs use "turning back" for disobedience), or the prohibition might be time-bound.
  • Rebuttal: The default rule in Usūl al-Fiqh is that the apparent meaning of a command is obligation. Even if it were recommendation, permitting its abandonment implies permission to abandon the recommended act, which is unsuitable for Prophets. The context strongly suggests the prohibition relates directly to the preceding command to enter the Holy Land. Restricting the prohibition to a specific time contradicts the apparent meaning.

• Abū Muslim Al-Iṣfahānī's View (It could be Pharaoh's Egypt):
  1. If read without tanwīn (مِصْرَ), it must be a proper noun for a specific city, and only Pharaoh's city fits this title. It is preferable to treat a word as a proper noun if possible. If read with tanwīn, it could still be a proper noun (like Noah/Lot) or a generic noun, in which case {Go down to Egypt} implies choice, like saying "Free a slave" (meaning any slave).
  2. God bequeathed Egypt to the Children of Israel ({Thus, and We caused to inherit it the Children of Israel} - Ash-Shu‘arā’: 59). Inheritance implies ownership, and ownership grants unrestricted disposition. Therefore, they could not have been forbidden from entering it.
  • Objection: A person can own a house but be forbidden from entering it (e.g., if they vow i‘tikāf in a mosque). God might have bequeathed them ownership/authority over Egypt but simultaneously forbidden entry by commanding them to enter the Holy Land.
  • Rebuttal: Ownership generally implies unrestricted disposition; prohibition requires evidence. The first group (against Abū Muslim) responds: They rely on the famous reading with tanwīn. If it implies choice, that generality is restricted by the evidence mentioned earlier (the command to enter the Holy Land). Regarding inheritance, while ownership implies disposition, this can be overridden by a circumstance, like mortgaged or rented property. They argue the evidence regarding the command to enter the Holy Land overrides the general principle of ownership.

• Humiliation (Dhillah): Made to surround them, encompassing them, as if they were inside a struck dome, or affixed to them like plaster on a wall. The closest meaning is that it became a deserved consequence, like the statement about those who spread corruption: {That is their disgrace in this world}.
• It is unlikely to mean jizyah (poll tax) specifically, as mentioned in {until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled}, because the jizyah was not imposed on them from the beginning.
• Neediness (Maskanah): Poverty, destitution, and severe hardship. This can be a form of punishment. Some scholars consider this a miracle because the Prophet informed them of this future state, and it occurred as predicted.

• Bā’ū (Incurred/Returned):
  1. Return: They returned and departed with that wrath. The word bā’a is usually used for something bad.
  2. Equalized: God's wrath became equal upon them (Al-Zajjāj).
  3. Deserved: They became deserving of it, as in {I intend that you should bear the burden of my sin and your sin} (Al-Mā’idah: 29), meaning you deserve both sins.
• Wrath of God: The intention of retribution.

• This explains the reason for the humiliation, neediness, and incurring of wrath.
• Mu‘tazilah Argument: If disbelief was created by God, just as humiliation was created by Him, why is disbelief the cause for the punishment, and not the other way around?
• Response: This is countered by citing the role of knowledge (awareness) and the call/invitation (dā‘ī). (The nature of disbelief was discussed previously.)

• This is an additional reason for the preceding consequences.
• Question 1: Why mention killing prophets separately when it is included under "disbelieving the signs of God"?
  • Answer: Disbelief in God's signs here refers to ignorance and denial of the signs. Killing the prophets is a distinct, greater act not fully encompassed by mere denial.
• Question 2: Why specify {unjustly} (bi-ghayr al-ḥaqq) when killing prophets is inherently unjust?
  • Answer 1: An act done with perceived justification might still be wrong. The phrase emphasizes that they killed them without any basis in what they believed to be right; rather, they knew the act was ugly yet committed it.
  • Answer 2: It is for emphasis, like {And whoever invokes another god besides God—he has no proof for it}, even though having proof for a second god is impossible.
  • Answer 3: If God had only condemned the killing, they might argue that God Himself kills. By saying {unjustly}, God distinguishes His killing (which is ḥaqq) from their killing (which is bi-ghayr al-ḥaqq).

• {That was because they disobeyed}: This is reinforcement by repeating the cause using different wording, like a master listing a servant's sins one by one when punishing him.
• {And they were transgressing}: This means injustice—exceeding the truth and moving toward falsehood.

Order of Mentioned Sins:

God excellently ordered the causes for punishment:

1. Sins against God Himself: Ignorance and denial of His blessings.
2. The greatest subsequent sin: Killing the Prophets.
3. Sins specific to themselves (disobedience).
4. Sins that affect others: Transgression and injustice.

• Question on Al-Ḥaqq (The Truth): Here, it is definite (بِالْحَقِّ), but in Al ‘Imrān (3:21), it is indefinite (بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ). What is the difference?
  • Answer: The definite article (الْحَقِّ) refers to the established, known truth among Muslims that justifies killing (e.g., apostasy after faith, adultery after marriage, or unjust killing). The indefinite form (بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ) in Al ‘Imrān emphasizes the generality: there was absolutely no truth, neither the known one nor any other, supporting their actions.

Verse 62

{Indeed, those who believed, and those who were Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians—whoever believed in God and the Last Day and did righteousness—they will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will come upon them, nor will they grieve.}

• This verse establishes that salvation is not exclusive to one group but is contingent upon faith in God, the Last Day, and righteous deeds, regardless of their specific religious affiliation mentioned.