Appearance
Verses 92–95
The connection of the first verse with the preceding ones is not clear; possibly it was not revealed with the remaining verses (which are clearly connected to each other). We had encountered a similar difficulty in deciding the revelation date of the verse: Say: O People of the Book! come to a word common between us and you ().
Someone has tried to show its relation with the other verses. He says:
The verse like the rest of the talk is addressed to the Children of Israel. Previously they were admonished and rebuked because they loved this world, and preferred wealth and riches to the Divine Religion. Now it says to them: You tell a lie when you claim a special relationship with God and His prophets, and when you say that you are pious and righteous ones. See what the truth is; you love your good property and sit on it refusing to spend from it in God’s way. You only spend from undesirable things which you do not care about. But man can never attain to righteousness unless he spends out of what he loves, that is, from good properties; and if you spend out of it God shall preserve it for you and give you its reward in the hereafter.
That is the gist of what he has written; but, as you see, it is stretching the point too far.
As for the rest of the verses, their connection with the preceding one is quite clear.
لَنْ تَنَالُوا الْبِرَّ حَتَّىٰ تُنْفِقُوا مِمَّا تُحِبُّونَ ۚ وَمَا تُنْفِقُوا مِنْ شَيْءٍ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ بِهِ عَلِيمٌ ٩٢
(3:92) Never shall you attain to righteousness until you spend (benevolently) out of what you love; and whatever thing you spend, Allah surely knows it.
al-Birr means comprehensive good-doing. al-Rāghib says:
“al-Barr (land) is opposite of al-baḥr (sea); it led to the idea of spaciousness, and from that is derived al-barr which means spaciousness or comprehensiveness in good-doing.”
“Good-doing” is used in an unrestricted sense. It covers the action of heart (like true belief and pure intention) as well as the action of body (like worship of God and spending in His way). And it is this very sense in which this word has been used in the following verse: It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is the one who believes in Allah and the Last Day, the angels and the Book and the prophets, and gives away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keeps up prayer and pays the zakāt; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts ().
Reading this verse in conjunction with the one under discussion, one may clearly understand that spending wealth out of love for God is an essential part of righteousness; and making righteousness dependent on this spending shows the utmost importance attached to it particularly. It is because man by nature has too much attachment with the wealth he has gathered; he thinks that it is a part of his being, if it goes then a portion of his life is gone. There is no such difficulty in other acts of worship and good deeds where nothing seems to be lost.
It is not difficult, in view of the above discourse, to see the weakness of an exegete’s explanation that ‘righteousness is spending from what you love.’ Perhaps he thought that the verse is framed in the style of the sentence, ‘You cannot get rid of hunger until you eat!’ The verse is enough to show inaptness of this explanation.
The same verse () also makes it clear that al-birr has been used in its literal sense, that is, comprehensiveness in good-doing, because it explains it by enumerating all-encompassing good of faith and deed. And it shows the inappropriateness of an explanation that al-birr means bounty and favor of God; or of someone else’s interpretation that it means the Garden.
...and whatever thing you spend, Allah surely knows it: It strengthens and gladdens the spenders’ hearts. They should know that what they have spent from their cherished wealth and property is not wasted, has not gone unnoticed, because God Who has enjoined them to do so, knows their spending and what they spend.
كُلُّ الطَّعَامِ كَانَ حِلًّا لِبَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِلَّا مَا حَرَّمَ إِسْرَائِيلُ عَلَىٰ نَفْسِهِ مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ تُنَزَّلَ التَّوْرَاةُ ۗ قُلْ فَأْتُوا بِالتَّوْرَاةِ فَاتْلُوهَا إِنْ كُنْتُمْ صَادِقِينَ ٩٣
(3:93) All food was lawful to the Children of Israel—except that which Israel had forbidden to himself—before the Torah was revealed. Say: Bring then the Torah and read it, if you are truthful.
Israel was (the acquired name of) the Prophet Jacob; he got this name because he endeavoured hard in the way of God; the People of the Book say that it means ‘one who vanquished God and prevailed against Him’. The Torah says that he wrestled with God in a place called Peniel and vanquished Him. But the Qur’an rejects it and the reason says that such thing is impossible.
The clause, “except that which Israel had forbidden to himself,” is exception from the above–mentioned “food”. The next clause, “before the Torah was revealed,” is related to the verb “was lawful”; it means: God had not forbidden any food to the Children of Israel before the Torah was revealed, except that which Israel had forbidden for himself.
The following sentence, Say: Bring them the Torah and read it, if you are truthful, indicates that the Jews were not admitting that every food was lawful to them before the Torah was revealed. They had to say so because they did not accept that Divine Laws could be abrogated. (We have described it under the verse , Whatever signs We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. No wonder, they disputed the words of God where He says: Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful to them ().
Likewise, the last verse, Say: Allah has spoken the truth; therefore follow the religion of Abraham … , indicates that they were trying to create doubts in the minds of the Muslims through these denials. They did not admit that every food was lawful to them before the revelation of the Torah; nor that many lawful things were forbidden to them because of their iniquity; and through these denials they disputed the claim of the Messenger of God (which was based on Divine Revelation) that his religion was that of Abraham, and that it was the natural religion free from excess and shortcoming. The Jews said: “How can it be true, when Abraham was a Jew in religion, on the shariah of Torah? How could religion of Abraham allow what was forbidden in the Torah, when abrogation is not allowed?”
It is clear now that the verse intends to answer the questions which the Jews had put about, and by which they had tried to confuse the
Muslims. Obviously, they had not put these questions directly to the Messenger of God, but to the believers during their social contacts. This inference is supported by the fact that the Qur’an has not mentioned here their objection or question at all, unlike many occasions where it has quoted their sayings before replying. For example, And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up (); And they say: Fire shall not touch us but for a few days (); And they say: Our hearts are covered (); there are several such verses.
Moreover, the verses , coming soon after this talk clearly show that the Jews were trying to mislead the believers through such insidious propaganda: Say: O People of the Book! why do you hinder him who believes from the way of Allah? … O you who believe! if you obey a party from among those who have been given the Book, they will turn you back as unbelievers after you have believed.
In short, the Jews objected as follows: How can your Prophet be true as he accepts validity of abrogation? He says that God had disallowed many lawful things to the Jews because of their iniquity. But it entails abrogation of a previously ordained law, which is not acceptable in case of God. What is unlawful will remain unlawful forever; it is not possible for a Divine Law to change.
God directed His Prophet to answer them as follows: The Torah says that every food was lawful to the Children of Israel before the revelation of the Torah. Therefore bring the Torah and read it if you are truthful in your claim. (All food was lawful … if you are truthful.) But if you refuse to do so, then you must admit that you have fabricated a lie against God and that you are unjust. (Then whoever fabricates a lie against Allah after this, these it is that are the unjust.) It will prove to you that I am truthful in my mission. You should therefore follow my religion which is the religion of Abraham, the upright one; (Say: Allah has spoken the truth; therefore follow the religion of Abraham, the upright one; and he was not one of the polytheists.)
The exegetes have variously explained these verses—each in his own way. But all have said that the verses aim to refute the objection of the Jews concerning abrogation—as we have said above.
The strangest explanation (given by one of them) is as follows:
“The verse replies to a Jewish objection regarding abrogation. It appears that the Jews had said: ‘O Muḥammad! If you are, as you claim, on the religion of Abraham and the succeeding prophets, then how is it that you have allowed, for example, camel meat that was forbidden to him and them? And now that you have made lawful what was unlawful to them, you should not claim that you affirm their truth and are on their religion; nor should you especially mention Abraham.’
“The reply runs as follows: ‘Every food was lawful to all people including the Children of Israel. But the Children of Israel had forbidden some things to themselves by indulging into sins and evils, as God says: Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them …’ (). Therefore, the word, ‘Israel’ , refers to the whole nation, to all the Children of Israel, not to Israel (Jacob) alone. And such usage in tribes’ names is common. The clause, ‘Israel had forbidden to himself’ , actually means that the Children of Israel indulged in injustice and committed sins, as a result of which God forbade it to them. The clause, ‘before the Torah was revealed’, qualifies the preceding verb, ‘Israel had forbidden to himself’; that is, what the Israelites had forbidden to themselves before the revelation of the Torah. If we take, ‘Israel’, to mean Jacob alone, then this clause (before the Torah was revealed) would be superfluous, because everybody knows that Jacob had preceded the revelation of the Torah.”
This is the gist of what he has written. Someone else has given the same explanation with one difference. He writes:
“The clause, ‘that which Israel had forbidden to himself’, means that the Children of Israel had themselves forbidden those things to themselves, making laws of their own, without any revelation from God; in the same way as the Arabs of pre-Islamic days were doing and which God has mentioned in the Qur’an.”
Both exegetes have strained the words to an intolerable limit, which no knowledgeable person would agree with. They have diverted the whole talk from its proper line. Actually, they were misled in this way because they thought that the clause, “before the Torah was revealed,” was related to the clause, “Israel had forbidden”—while in fact it qualifies the words in the beginning, “All food was lawful”; and the exception clause, “except that which Israel had forbidden to himself,” is just a parenthetical clause.
Consequently, there is no reason why “Israel” should be interpreted as “the Children of Israel,” as they have done, thinking that without it the verse could not be explained!
Now we come to the usage of tribes’ names. It is true that the Arabs say, Bakr, Taghlib, Nizār and ʿAdnān, when they actually mean, the children of Bakr, the children of Taghlib, the children of Nizār and the children of ʿAdnān, respectively. But we have never seen them—at the time when the Qur’an was revealed—using “Israel” for “the Children of Israel”. Nor has the Qur’an used this word in that sense anywhere else; although it has mentioned “the Children of Israel” in about forty places, including this very verse: All food was lawful to the Children of Israel—except that which Israel had forbidden to himself.
Let us ask them one thing: What is the difference (according to their explanation) between the two clauses? The Qur’an refers to them first as “the Children of Israel” and then immediately after that as “Israel”. Why this change if both words mean the same? If their explanation is correct, then was it not necessary to use the same word in both places, lest there be any confusion? And confusion was bound to occur; because, from the point of view of these two writers, the whole lot of the exegetes was miled into thinking that Israel refers to Jacob, not to his children!
The best proof to show that the name “Israel” refers to Jacob alone, is the singular masculine pronoun, “to himself,” used for “Israel”. Had “Israel” stood for “the tribe of Israel” or “the Children of Israel,” it was essential to say “to itself” or “to themselves”.
Say: Bring then the Torah and read it, if you are truthful: So that it may be seen who is right, I or you. God guides His Prophet to reply them in this way.
فَمَنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ مِنْ بَعْدِ ذَٰلِكَ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ ٩٤
(3:94) Then whoever fabricates a lie against Allah after this, these it is that are the unjust.
Apparently it is God’s talk addressed to His Prophet; accordingly, the aim is to strengthen and gladden the Prophet’s heart, by declaring that it is his enemies, the Jews, who are the unjust, because they fabricate lies against God. It is an indirect adverse allusion to the Jews.
There is another syntactical possibility: It may be a continuation of the reply given to the Jews by the Prophet, although the second person singular pronoun used in the demonstrative pronoun dhālika (this) does not fit this explanation. However, according to this explanation too, the sentence would be just veiled aside, giving the vanquished adversary a chance to save his face—because it does not clearly say that the Jews are the unjust ones. Putting the matter in general terms gives the enemy an opportunity to surrender gracefully.
It is the same style that has been used in the following verse which says: And most surely we or you are on a right way or in manifest error ().
The demonstrative pronoun, “this,” in after this points to the explanation and proof offered to the Jews.
Why has this proviso, “after this,” been added here? Is not he, who fabricates a lie against God, unjust in all circumstances? The fact is that he cannot be called unjust until proof has been clearly explained to him as some scholars have said. However, the sentence, “these it is that are the unjust,” is an exclusive one, and it implies that such fabricators cannot be but unjust.
قُلْ صَدَقَ اللَّهُ ۗ فَاتَّبِعُوا مِلَّةَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ حَنِيفًا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ ٩٥
(3:95) Say: Allah has spoken the truth; therefore follow the religion of Abraham, the upright one; and he was not one of the polytheists.
As the truth is on my side (in what I have told you and called you to), you should follow my religion; also you should admit that camel meat, for example, is a good thing made lawful by God, and that God had forbidden it to you as a punishment for your injustice and transgression—as He has said.
The clause, “therefore follow the religion of Abraham,” is a sort of indirect invitation to follow the Prophet’s religion. It was not mentioned directly because: first, the Jews affirmed the truth of Abraham’s religion; secondly, the present wording shows that the religion to which they are invited is the upright and natural one—after all, nature does not prevent man from eating good sustenance given by God, including meat.
Examining Narrations
- (Imam) al-Ṣādiq said: “Whenever Israel (Jacob) ate camel meat, he felt throbbing of pain in his sides. Therefore, he forbade camel meat to himself. And it was (long) before the revelation of the Torah. When the Torah was revealed, (Moses) neither forbade it, nor ate it.” (al-Kāfī; al-Tafsīr, al-ʿAyyāshī)
Author’s comment: An almost similar tradition is narrated through the Sunnī chains. The verbs in the clause, neither for bade it nor ate it, refer to Moses whose name, although not mentioned, is clearly understood. The verb, lam yaʾkulhu (did not eat it) may alternatively be read from the paradigm al-tafʿīl’ as lam yuʾakkilhu (did not feed it, that is, did not tell them to eat it). The dictionary, Tāj al-ʿArūs, says that the verb al-akl (to eat) when conjugated on the paradigms of al-tafʿīl and al-mufāʿalah has the same meaning. It means that al-taʾkīl (to feed) and al-muʾākalah (to eat together) have the same connotation.
We have used the word “righteousness” in translation to convey this comprehensive goodness. (Trans.) ↩︎
al-Ṭaʿām (whatever is eaten); the people of Ḥijāz (in whose language the Qur’an was revealed) use this word particularly for wheat, and it is this meaning they understand when the word is used without any association. al-ḥill (lawfulness) is opposite of al-ḥurmah (unlawfulness, prohibition); probably it is derived from al-ḥall (to open) which is opposite of al-ʿAqd or al-ʿAql (to tie, to bind)—thus lawfulness has a connotation of openness, unrestrictedness. (Auth.) ↩︎
See Genesis 32:24–30. (Trans.) ↩︎
See al-Mīzān (Engl. transl.), vol. 2. (Pub.) ↩︎