Al-Baqarah: (97-98) Say, "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel..."

Know that this section is another instance of the reprehensible actions and statements of the Jews.

Issue 1: The Reason for the Command to Address Them

The Almighty's command, {Say, "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel"}, must have a specific cause or event that occurred among the Jews, prompting God to command the Prophet (PBUH) to address them this way, as it functions as a form of argumentation (muḥājjah). If no such event were established, God would not command this. Commentators mention several accounts:

1. The Dialogue with Ibn Ṣūriyā: When the Prophet (PBUH) arrived in Medina, 'Abdullāh ibn Ṣūriyā approached him and asked about his sleep, claiming they knew the sleep pattern of the Prophet who would come at the end of time. The Prophet replied, "My eyes sleep, but my heart does not." Ibn Ṣūriyā confirmed this. He then asked about the origin of offspring (man or woman), and the Prophet explained that bones/nerves come from the man, while flesh/blood/hair come from the woman. Ibn Ṣūriyā agreed. When asked why a man resembles his paternal uncles more than his maternal uncles (or vice versa), the Prophet explained it depends on whose "water" (seed) is dominant. Ibn Ṣūriyā agreed again. Finally, he asked which food Israel (Ya'qūb) prohibited for himself, which was mentioned in the Torah as something the unlettered Prophet would reveal. The Prophet asked them to swear by God who sent down the Torah if they knew that Israel, after a severe illness, vowed to prohibit himself the dearest food and drink—camel meat and milk—if God healed him. They confirmed this. The Prophet then said one final thing would make him believe: "Which angel brings you what you say from God?" He replied, "Gabriel; he brings down severity and fighting." They preferred Michael, who brings ease and glad tidings. The Prophet asked about the origin of this enmity. Ibn Ṣūriyā explained that God revealed to their prophet that Jerusalem would be destroyed by a man named Nebuchadnezzar (Bakhtanassar). They sought him out to kill him, but Gabriel intervened, saying that if they killed him, it would not be the one God foretold would destroy Jerusalem. Later, Nebuchadnezzar grew strong, conquered them, and destroyed Jerusalem. Thus, they made Gabriel their enemy. As for Michael, he is Gabriel's enemy. 'Umar then declared that whoever is an enemy to Gabriel is an enemy to Michael, and they are enemies to all others. When they denied this, the verses were revealed.

2. 'Umar's Visit to the Jewish Schools: 'Umar owned land in the upper part of Medina and often passed by the Jewish schools, listening to them. They expressed affection for him, hoping to sway him. 'Umar stated he came not out of love but to gain certainty regarding Muhammad (PBUH) by examining their scriptures. He asked them about Gabriel. They replied that Gabriel was their enemy because he revealed their secrets to Muhammad, bringing down ruin and punishment, whereas Michael brought fertility and peace. When asked about their status with God, they said they were the closest: Gabriel on God's right, Michael on His left, and that Michael was an enemy to Gabriel. 'Umar retorted, "If what you say is true, they are not enemies! You are more misguided than donkeys. Whoever is an enemy to one is an enemy to the other, and whoever is an enemy to both is an enemy to God." When 'Umar returned, he found Gabriel had already brought down the revelation. The Prophet (PBUH) told him, "Your Lord has agreed with you, 'Umar!" 'Umar said he became firmer in his faith after that than stone.

3. Muqātil's Account: The Jews claimed that Gabriel was their enemy because God commanded him to place prophethood among them, but he placed it elsewhere (among the Israelites/Arabs).

The Strongest Reason: It is most likely that their enmity stemmed from Gabriel's role in revealing the Qur'an to Muhammad (PBUH). The phrase {for verily he has brought it down to your heart by Allah's permission} implies that this revelation should not be a cause for enmity, as it was done by God's command. This is supported in several ways:

• The revelation brought by Gabriel contained warnings of punishment for sinners, promises of reward for the obedient, and commands for fighting. Since Gabriel acted only by God's command—whose decree they acknowledge cannot be escaped—enmity toward this messenger leads to enmity toward God, which is disbelief (kufr).
• If God had commanded Michael to reveal such a Book, Michael would either have refused (impossible for infallible angels) or accepted. If he accepted, the same accusations leveled against Gabriel would apply to Michael. Why single out Gabriel?
• Just as the revelation of the Qur'an was difficult for the Jews, the revelation of the Torah was difficult for other nations. If their aversion to the Qur'an justifies condemnation, then the aversion of those earlier nations to the Torah should also be condemned. Since this is false, their position is proven baseless.

Issue 2: Doubting the Jewish Claim

Some people found it unlikely that Jews would claim Gabriel was their enemy, noting that contemporary Jews deny this and claim their ancestors never said it. This view is false because God's report is truer, and their ignorance was profound, as evidenced by their earlier demand: {Appoint for us a god just as they have gods} (Al-A'rāf: 138).

Issue 3: Recitations of "Gabriel"

Ibn Kathīr recited it as Jibrīl (with fatḥa on Jīm and kasra on Rā, without hamza). Ḥamzah, Al-Kisā'ī, and Abū Bakr (from 'Āṣim) recited it as Jibrā'īl (with fatḥa on Jīm and Rā, with hamza). The rest recited it as Jibrīl (with kasra on Jīm and Rā, without hamza), like qindīl. There are seven known recitations, including those mentioned. Other forms include Jabrā'īl, Jirā'īl, Jabrā'īl, and Jibrīn (with Nūn). The word is diptote (deflected) due to being a proper noun and a foreign name.

Issue 4: The Meaning of "Gabriel"

Some suggested Jibrīl means "Servant of God," where Jabr means "servant" and Īl means "God" (the view of Ibn 'Abbās and others). Abū 'Alī Al-Sūsī refuted this for two reasons:

1. 'Īl is not a known name for God.
2. If it meant "Servant of God," the ending of the name should be in the genitive case.

Regarding the phrase: {for verily he has brought it down to your heart}

Answer: Two views:

1. The first pronoun (hu) refers to Gabriel, and the second (hu in nazzalahu) refers to the Qur'an, even though the Qur'an was not explicitly mentioned before, as it is implicitly known (like saying "on the earth" when mentioning creatures). This is the view of Ibn 'Abbās and most scholars. Meaning: If their enmity is because Gabriel brings the Qur'an, he brings it only by God's permission. Al-Kashshāf noted that omitting a previously known name adds grandeur, implying the subject is so famous it refers to itself merely by mentioning one of its attributes.
2. The meaning is: "Verily God sent down Gabriel," not that Gabriel sent himself down.

Answer: This issue was discussed in Sūrat Ash-Shu'arā' (26:193). The majority hold that the Qur'an was revealed to him, not onto his heart. However, the heart is specified because the revelation was firmly established in his heart through memorization, enabling him to convey it to his Ummah. Since the heart's retention was the means of performance, it is permissible to say it was sent down "to your heart."

Answer: The phrasing follows the manner in which God spoke it, as if saying: "Say, 'Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel, for verily he has sent it down to your heart' [as I have spoken it]."

Answer: Two perspectives:

1. God clarifies that their enmity is corrupt because Gabriel only brought down a Book containing guidance and glad tidings. Since he was commanded, he is excused. Since he brought guidance, he deserves thanks. How, then, is enmity appropriate?
2. God shows that if they hate him, they have a reason: Gabriel brought down the Book as proof of the Prophet's truthfulness, which they detest. Thus, they naturally hate the one who confirms what they hate.

Regarding the phrase: {by Allah's permission}

The most apparent meaning is "by Allah's command," which is preferable to interpreting it as "by Allah's knowledge" for several reasons:

1. Idhn (permission) primarily means command; using it metaphorically for knowledge is secondary. Words should be taken in their primary meaning when possible.
2. The revelation was obligatory, and obligation stems from command, not knowledge.
3. If the revelation was by command, the argument against the Jews is stronger.

Regarding the phrase: {confirming what came before it}

This is generally understood by most commentators to refer to the previous Books of the Prophets. Some restrict it only to the Torah, claiming it indicates the Qur'an agrees with the Torah in testifying to Muhammad's prophethood.

Objection: If the laws (Sharā'i') of the Qur'an contradict the laws of previous Books, how can it be confirming them?

Reply: The laws in previous Books were limited to their specific times and were abrogated at this time (based on the principle that abrogation clarifies the end of a period of worship). Therefore, there is no contradiction in the laws between the Qur'an and the previous Scriptures.

Regarding the phrase: {and guidance}

The Qur'an encompasses two things:

1. Clarification of what is required in terms of deeds of the heart and limbs; in this respect, it is guidance (hudā).
2. Clarification of the reward for performing those deeds; in this respect, it is glad tidings (bushrā). Since the first precedes the second in existence, God mentioned hudā before bushrā.

Objection: Why are guidance and glad tidings specified for the believers, even though they apply to everyone?

Reply:

1. They are specified because they are the ones who were guided by the Book, similar to {a guidance for the righteous} (Al-Baqarah: 2).
2. Glad tidings can only be for believers, as bushrā means news of great good, which is only realized by the believers.

Regarding the second verse: {Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels}

After establishing in the first verse that enmity toward Gabriel (who brought the Qur'an) implies enmity toward God, this verse clarifies that enmity toward God results in God's enmity toward them. This highlights the severity of the consequence: their enmity is ineffective, but God's enmity leads to eternal, agonizing punishment, the greatest harm possible.

Answer: True enmity (desiring harm for the enemy) is only applicable to created beings. For God, the term implies one of two meanings:

1. They are enemies to God's allies (awliyā' Allāh), which is considered enmity toward God (as in {The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger} (Al-Mā'idah: 33), where the intent is war against His allies).
2. They hate performing obedience and worship to God and distance themselves from adhering to it. Since an enemy rarely agrees with or submits to their foe, their conduct is likened to enmity.

Enmity toward Gabriel and the Messengers is genuine because inflicting harm upon them is possible (though their enmity is ineffective due to the Jews' weakness). However, their enmity toward the Jews is effective, resulting in humiliation in this world and eternal punishment in the Hereafter.

Answer: Two reasons:

1. They are singled out due to their high status, as if they constitute a separate category beyond the general term "angels."
2. The dispute with the Jews specifically involved these two angels, so the verse names them directly.

This specificity implies they are superior to all other angels. If this is established, Gabriel must be superior to Michael for several reasons:

1. Gabriel is mentioned first. Mentioning the lesser before the greater is conventionally disliked, and what is disliked conventionally is disliked religiously (based on the Prophet's saying: "What the Muslims deem good, Allah deems good").
2. Gabriel brings the Qur'an, revelation, and knowledge (the means of sustaining spirits), while Michael brings sustenance and rain (the means of sustaining bodies). Knowledge is superior to food, so Gabriel is superior.
3. God describes Gabriel as {Obeyed, then trustworthy} (Al-Mutaffifīn: 24). The description "Obeyed" (mutā') implies absolute obedience, suggesting he is obeyed even by Michael, thus making him superior.

Issue 5: Recitations of "Michael"

Abū 'Amr and Ḥafṣ (from 'Āṣim) recited it as Mīkāl (like qintār). Nāfi' recited it as Mīkā'īl (with a shortened yā' after the hamza, like Mīkā'al). The rest recited it as Mīkā'īl (like Mīkā'īl). Another recitation is Mīkā'īl (like Mīkā'īl). Ibn Jinni noted that Arabs often mix pronunciations when uttering foreign names.

Issue 6: The Meaning of the "Wāw" in Gabriel and Michael

It is suggested the wāw is conjunctive (and), or it means "or," implying: "Whoever is an enemy to any of these, then Allah is an enemy to all disbelievers."

Issue 7: {an enemy to the disbelievers}

The phrasing uses the explicit term "disbelievers" (al-kāfirīn) instead of the pronoun "them" (lahum) to indicate that God's enmity toward them is specifically because of their disbelief, and that the angels' enmity is also rooted in disbelief.

! 7 < {And verily We have sent down unto you manifest signs, and none disbelieve therein except the defiantly disobedient.} > 7 !

<