Appearance
Verses 112–115
These verses narrate the story of the table sent down to Christ and his companions. While they do not explicitly state that God sent it down, the concluding verse implies a divine promise to do so, highlighting God’s attribute of never breaking His promise.
The opinion held by some, suggesting that they sought forgiveness from Jesus upon hearing the threat of unprecedented punishment for disbelief after the table’s arrival, lacks substantiation from either the Qur’an or credible ḥadīth.
This view has been attributed to several exegetes, including al-Mujāhid and al-Ḥasan, but their opinions alone do not constitute proof. Even if these views were based on traditions, they would have incomplete chains of narrators, rendering them weak and unreliable as proof. Additionally, these views are contradicted by other traditions that affirm the table’s descent. Even if accurate, such isolated traditions are not typically relied upon outside of jurisprudence.
Occasionally, the argument is made that the table did not descend based on the fact that Christians are unaware of it, and it is not mentioned in their holy books. Proponents of this view argue that if the table had indeed been sent down, there would be numerous reasons for it to be documented in their scriptures and preserved as part of their societal memory, much like the Last Supper—referred to as the Eucharist—is remembered and celebrated.
However, anyone familiar with the history of Christianity, including its spread and the emergence of the Gospels, would likely dismiss such claims. This is because their texts were not consistently written and preserved with uninterrupted transmission (tawātur) from the time of Jesus. Moreover, contemporary Christianity does not directly connect back to him in a way that would validate the continuity of teachings received from one generation to the next, nor does it encompass the entirety of what is attributed to Christ’s Call.
Certainly, some Gospels do recount the story of Jesus feeding his disciples and others with only a small quantity of bread and fish. However, this narrative differs significantly in detail from the account presented in the Qur’an.
The Gospel According to St. John, in says:
- After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.
- And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
- And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.
- And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.
- When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?
- And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.
- Philip answered him, Two hundred penny worth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.
- One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, saith unto him.
- There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?
- And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
- And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.
- When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
- Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.
- Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
- When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
Furthermore, upon reflecting on the Qur’anic rendition of this story, we encounter aspects that merit deeper thought. The initial request posed at the story’s outset is devoid of the respect and decorum typically expected in addressing God. The narrative concludes with a stern warning from God, threatening those who choose disbelief after this event with a unique punishment, unlike any inflicted upon other nations. This aspect of the story is distinct from any divine sign granted to His prophets or any requests made by their followers, such as those in the stories of Noah, Hūd, Ṣāliḥ, Shuayb, Moses and Muḥammad.
Could the stern response be due to the disciples’ lack of decorum in their questioning, as their words seemingly expressed doubt about divine power? However, when we examine the demands of previous nations, we find instances of blatant disrespect towards the majesty of their Lord and mockery of their prophets. Additionally, the arrogance displayed by the contemporaries of the Prophet and the Jews of that era, as depicted in the Quran, appears even more impertinent and offensive.
Or was the severity of the warning due to the fact that the disciples, who were believers prior to this event, lapsed into disbelief after witnessing the table’s descent and observing clear signs, thus warranting such a grave threat? Although turning to disbelief after witnessing clear signs is indeed a significant transgression, this reaction was not unique to them. Similar instances occurred in other nations, yet they were not subjected to such stern warnings. This includes even those who, having been granted proximity to the divine, later apostatized—a situation described in the Qur’an: And recite to them the narrative of him to whom We gave Our signs, but he withdrew himself from them, so the Satan overtook him, so he became of those who go astray ().
What may be said at this juncture is that this story, which began with a question, is distinguished with a theme that is unique among all miracles of the prophets, which they had brought because of their people’s suggestion, or some other necessary requirements.
The miraculous signs narrated by the Divine Book were of various types: There were the miracles which God gave to the prophets when He sent them to the people, in order that it should serve as the proof to support their claims of prophethood or messengership, as Moses was given the bright hand and staff; and Jesus was enabled to raise the dead to life, create the bird and heal the blind and the lepers; and Muḥammad was given the Qur’an. These signs were given, as they were needed for the Call to the true belief and for completing the proof against the disbelievers, so that he who would perish might perish by clear proof, and he who would live might live by clear proof; …().
There were the miracles brought by the prophets and the messengers as a result of the disbelievers’ suggestions, like the she-camel of Ṣāliḥ; in the same category come the dreadful happenings and tormenting chastisements which appeared in the course of the prophetic Calls, like the signs of Moses against the people of Pharash (locust, lice, frogs, etc. totalling seven signs), flood of Noah, earthquake of Thamūd, storm of ‘Ād and similar things. These too were the signs connected to the disbelieving enemies.
There were the signs shown by God to the believers for fulfilling their needs, like gushing forth of streams from rocks, coming down of manna and quails for the Israelites in the wilderness, raising of the mountain over their heads and opening up the river to save them from Pharaoh and his deeds. These were the signs, which appeared either to frighten the sinners and the arrogant or to show the dignity of the believers in order that the word of the Beneficent Lord is completed about them—without any suggestion put by them.
Of the same category are the promises given by God in His Book to the believers for manifesting the honor of His Messenger, example, the promise of the conquest of Mecca, and of victory of the Romans in a few years, etc.
These are the categories of the signs narrated in the Qur’an and described in divine teachings. But as for suggesting a sign after coming down of a sign, it is a fantasy which the divine teaching counts as nonsense that should not be paid attention to: For example, the proposal of the People of the Book that the Prophet should bring for them a book from the heavens, while the Qur’an was present before their eyes. God says: The People of the Book ask you to bring down to them a book from heaven; so indeed they had demanded of Moses a greater thing than that, for they said: “Show us Allah manifestly”; … But Allah bears witness by what He has revealed to you that He has revealed it with His knowledge; and the angels bear witness (also); and sufficient is Allah for a witness (; 166).
Likewise, the polytheists had asked the Prophet that he should bring down the angels or should show God to them. God says: And those who do not hope for Our meeting say: “Why not have angels been sent down upon us, or (why) do we not see our Lord?” Now certainly they are too proud of themselves and have revolted in great revolt (). Also, He says: And they say: “What is the matter with this Messenger that he eats food and goes about in the markets? Why has not an angel been sent down to him, so that he should have been a warner with him? Or (why is not) a treasure sent down to him, or he is made to have a garden from which he should eat?” And the unjust say: “You do not follow any but a man enchanted.” See what likeness do they apply to you, so they have gone astray; therefore they shall not be able to find a way (). There are many verses of the same theme.
It is only because the purpose of coming down of a sign or verse is manifestation of truth and completion of proof; when it came down then indeed the truth became manifest and the proof was complete. Now, there is no sense in asking for coming down of a sign as it has already happened and the purpose achieved, and therefore such asking would only mean mockery of divine signs, playing with the Lord’s majesty and wavering in acceptance of reality; and it is the greatest arrogance and haughtiness.
Such behavior, when exhibited by believers, signifies a more severe offense and a greater sin. Why would a believer request a heavenly sign when they already possess faith, particularly if they are among those who have witnessed divine signs and believed thereafter? Isn’t this akin to the requests made by people indulging in luxury, at gatherings of entertainment and assemblies of amusement, who challenge magicians and illusionists to display their most astonishing tricks and remarkable feats?
What appears from the words: When the disciples said: “O Jesus son of Mary! Is your Lord able to send down to us food from heaven?” that they had asked the Christ to show them a sign which would be reserved for them; they were his disciples, attached to him; and they had seen those clear signs and manifest miracles; because he was not sent to his people except with miraculous signs, as is seen from the divine words: “And a messenger to the Children of Israel: ‘That I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I create for you out of clay the likeness of a bird; then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird with Allah’s leave; and I heal the blind and the leper, and bring to life the dead, by Allah’s leave’” ().
And how can it be imagined about him who believed in Christ that he would not have seen any sign from him, while he in his own existence was a sign: God created him without a father, and strengthened him with the Holy Ghost, and he talked with the people in the cradle as well as in matured age; and he continued to be honored by one sign after another until God raised him to Himself and ended his affairs with a wonderful sign.
When they asked to be shown a sign which they had chosen for themselves—even after seeing all those numerous sign—it was tantamount to suggesting a sign after a sign; thus they committed a great offence, and that is why Jesus admonished them, saying: “Fear Allah if you are believers.”
And it was because of the same reason that they reinterpreted their suggestion and explained it again in such a way as to tone down the vehemence of their speech and blunt its edge; so they said: “We desire that we should eat of it and that our hearts should be at rest, and that we may know that you have indeed spoken the truth to us and that we may be of the witnesses to it.” Thus they added to eating from it other reasons to explain their suggestion. They wanted to show that this suggestion was not like amusement with wondrous activities or playing with divine signs; rather there are some benefits intended, like perfection of their knowledge and removal of wrong ideas from their hearts and their being the witnesses to it.
Yet they did not omit mentioning the intention of eating from it, and that was the main offence. If they had said: ‘We desire that we should eat of it so that our hearts should be at rest,’ there would not have been any blame on them; but they said: “… eat of it and that our hearts should be at rest.” The former sentence cuts at the roots of all fantasy and foolhardiness, but not the latter (that is, present construction).
When they insisted, Jesus agreed to their demand and asked his Lord to honor them in this way; and it was the only sign sent down to them on their suggestion in an apparently unimperative matter, and that is the believers’ partaking of it. That is why he presented it in a manner suitable to be addressed to the Divine Majesty, so he said: “O Allah, our Lord! Send down to us food from heaven which should be an ever-recurring happiness, to the first of us and to the last of us.” Thus he dressed it in the robe of festivity; feast for a people is the day in which they get a gift or an item of pride, which is exclusively reserved, to them from among the people, and the coming down of the table has this particular attribute.
When Jesus asked of his Lord what he asked—and far be it from him to ask for anything except what he hoped that it would be accepted, and that his Lord would not disgrace him by rejecting it; and far be it from his Lord to turn him away without accepting his invocation—his Lord accepted his prayer, but with one proviso, that whoever among his people would disbelieve afterwards, God would chastise him with a chastisement that would be exclusively reserved to them, as the sign that would be given to them would be exclusively reserved to them; that is why He said: “Surely I will send it down to you, but whoever shall disbelieve afterwards from among you, surely I will chastise him with a chastisement with which I will not chastise any one among the nations.” Ponder on it.
إِذْ قَالَ الْحَوَارِيُّونَ يَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ هَلْ يَسْتَطِيعُ رَبُّكَ أَنْ يُنَزِّلَ عَلَيْنَا مَائِدَةً مِنَ السَّمَاءِ ۖ قَالَ اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُؤْمِنِينَ ١١٢
(5:112) When the disciples said: “O Jesus son of Mary! Is your Lord able to send down to us food from heaven?” He said: “Fear Allah if you are believers.”
‘When’ is an adverb, related to an implied verb, Remember, or some similar word.
Someone has said that it is related to the words in the preceding verse, they said: “We believe in Allah; and bear witness that we are submitting ones.” It means: The disciples said: “We believe and bear witness that we submit,” at the time when they said to Jesus: “Is your Lord able to send down to us food from heaven?” It shows that they were not truthful in their claim, nor were they serious in asking Jesus, to bear witness that they were submitters.
Comment: This interpretation goes against the context. How could their belief be impure, when God Himself had revealed to them to believe in Him and His Messenger? And when God counts it as His favor to Jesus. Apart from that, if this verse was joined to the preceding one, it should have brought a pronoun and not said: “When the disciples said.”
Regarding the term al-Māidah (plate, when it contains food), al-Rāghib has said: “al-Māidah is the plate that contains food; and both (plate and food) are separately called māidah; and it is said: ‘Mādanī yumīdunī’, that is, ‘He fed me.’”
The wording of their question, that is, “Is your Lord able to send down to us food from heaven?” according to its apparent meaning that comes to the mind, is such that the reason thinks it difficult that it could have been uttered by the disciples, who were companions of the Christ, and his confidants who adhered to him, were illuminated by the light of his knowledge and cognizance, and followed in his footsteps; and belief and faith—even in its lowest rank, makes man aware that God has power over everything, He cannot be overcome and no disability reaches Him. So, how was it possible for them to ask their messenger whether his Lord was able to send down to them food from heaven?
That is why al-Kasā’ī, one of the seven reciters, has recited this verse as: hal tastaṭī‘u (second person singular) rabbaka (as an object); that is, ‘Are you able (to ask) your Lord?’ Thus, implying the verb, which we have put in the brackets.
The exegetes have given different interpretations of this question, while most of them agree that it means other than what comes to the mind that they entertained doubt about the power of God—because they were far above such absurd ignorance.
The best possible interpretation is to say that ability in this verse is an allusion to demand of the underlying reason and occurrence of permission; in the same way as possibility, power and ability are used metaphorically in this very meaning. For example, it is said: ‘The King cannot listen to every needy person;’ it means that the King’s underlying reason prevents him from it; otherwise, listening to is within his ability. Or as it is said: ‘A rich man cannot give to everyone who asks,’ that is, the reason of protecting the wealth does not demand it. Or as it is said: ‘A knowledgeable person cannot disseminate all that he knows,’ that is, stops him from it the welfare of religion, or welfare of the people, or the system that is prevalent among them. Or as one says to his companion: ‘Can you come with me to visit Mr. X?’ The question implies: ‘Does it agree with your welfare and wisdom?’ It does not imply his ability to go there. Think over it.
There are some other explanations given by the exegetes:
One: The disciples had asked this question in order to acquire tranquillity through the belief resulting from observation; it was not because they were having any doubt regarding God’s power. In a way, it is the same mode as God quotes in the story of Abraham that he said: “My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead.” He said: “What! And do you not believe?” He said: “Yes, but that my heart may be at ease.” … ().
Comment: Although there is nothing wrong in asking for a sign for increase in belief and tranquillity of heart, but there is no reason to take their question in this meaning; and their sinlessness is not proved, like Abraham so that it could be an independent proof for interpreting their talk in a way free from rancor. Rather the proof is against it, because they had not said: ‘We desire that we should eat of it in order that our hearts should be at ease’ (as Abraham had said, ‘Yes, but that my heart may be at ease’). Rather they had said, ‘We desire that we should eat of it and that our hearts may be at ease;’ thus they had counted the eating, per se, a purpose.
Moreover, this interpretation takes it for granted that their hearts were clean of any shade of doubt regarding the divine power. And the ugliness of the apparent meaning of their talk remains in its place.
Apart from that, it had been explained under the verse 2:260: And when Abraham said: “My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead.” …, that he did not want to see the dead getting life after death. (The interpretation under Comment is based on this idea.) Because that would have meant asking for a sign after clear observation, as he was at that time talking with his Lord “face to face.” What he had asked for was to see ‘how’ the dead would be raised—in the afore-mentioned meaning.
Two: They actually wanted to ask about the action, not about God’s power to do so; they expressed the idea metaphorically through its concomitant.
Comment: There is no proof for this explanation. Even if we accept it, it would negate the idea that they were ignorant of all-encompassing divine power; but the unsuitability of their talk to manners of servitude still remains in place.
Three: There is in this speech an implied word, which is omitted. The complete sentence is as follows: ‘Are you able to ask your Lord to send down to us food from heaven?’ This meaning is supported by the recital: ‘Are you able (to ask) your Lord,’ that is, ‘Are you able to ask Him without there being anyone to dissuade you from it.’
Comment: This supposed omission and implication cannot turn the words: ‘Is your Lord able to …’ into, ‘Are you able to ask your Lord;’ because the verbs differ in the two recitals—in the verse it is third person singular, while in the implied one it is second person singular; and omission or implication does not change the third person to the second person at all.
However, if such change over be necessary, then it would be said as follows: It ascribes the action of Jesus to his Lord, because his action is in reality God’s action, or because everything attributed to him belongs to God. But to begin with this explanation is wrong because only those actions of prophets and messengers are attributed to God which do not bring any defect or shortcoming to His majesty, example, guidance, knowledge and things like that. On the other hand, when it comes to the concomitants of their humility and humanity, like lack of power and neediness or eating and drinking, etc., their attribution to Him cannot be justified at all. Apart from that, the difficulty of the apparent meaning of the words remains in its place.
Four: al-Istiṭā‘ah (ability) is used here in the meaning of al-iṭā‘ah (obedience); and the question means: ‘Will your Lord obey you and accept your prayer if you asked Him for it.’
Comment: It is like jumping out from the frying pan into the fire. Obviously, the question whether God would obey His messenger is more hideous and repulsive than the query about His capability.
Someone has supported this explanation as follows: al-Istiṭāʿah and al-iṭāʿah both are derived from the root ṭ-w-‘ (obedience) which is opposite of kurh (dislike); thus obeying an order means doing it with pleasure and free will; the paradigm of al-istifʿāl from this stem is like that of this paradigm from the stem (jawb). In other words, as istijābah gives the meaning of ijābah (to accept prayer), likewise istiṭāʿah indicates iṭāʿah; thus istaṭāʿahu means aṭāʿahu (‘he obeyed him’). And ‘s’ and ‘t’ in both verbal nouns denote their most well known theme, and that is ‘to want something’; however it is related to an implied verb which is indicated by the described verb that emanates from the omitted one; ‘he is capable of doing this thing’ means as follows: ‘He wanted it and intended that this thing should obey him, and so it obeyed him and followed his order’; likewise he answered Zayd means: ‘Zayd asked for something and wanted it to accept his call, so it answered it’.
He further says: With this fine explanation we may understand the correctness of those exegetes’ opinion who have said that “Is your Lord able” here means “Will your Lord obey,” that is, Will He do this work by His own free will and pleasure, without any compulsion? In short, it means that: Will your Lord be pleased to send down to us food from heaven, when we ask Him, or when you ask it from Him on our behalf?
Comments:
First: All that he has done is to correlate istaṭāʿa with istajābah, and give to the former the later’s meaning. But using analogy in language is not allowed.
Second: That both istiṭāʿah and iṭāʿah are derived from ṭawʿ which is opposite of kurh (dislike), does not necessarily mean that the stem’s meaning will be preserved in all conjugational changes; because there are many basic words which have left their original meaning as a result of the changes in conjugation, for example: dharaba (he hit) and adhraba (he went on strike); qabila (he accepted), aqbala (he came forward), qabbala (he kissed), qābala (he encountered) istaqbala (he welcomed).
When the grammarians look at the basic stem of the verb while seeing its conjugational changes, their only aim is to find out how much of the basic meaning is sustained in all these changes; or does that meaning give way to another new one; they do not think that the original meaning should be preserved, even with all those changes. Understand it.
A word indicates the meaning that is understood from it by the live and prevalent usage, not by the literal connotation of its root word. The word: istiṭā‘ah has been used in more than forty places in the Divine Book, and everywhere it gives the meaning of ability. And the word: aṭā‘ah is used in nearly seventy places, and everywhere it gives the meaning of obedience. Also, wherever the word: ṭaw‘ has been used it denotes ‘opposite of dislike’. Now, how can the word: istiṭā‘a be taken to mean iṭā‘a, and this in its turn be taken to mean ṭaw‘? And how can it be then claimed that ability here means pleasure or liking?
As for ajāba and istajāba, both have been used in the Qur’an in the same meaning; and istajābah has been used several times more than ajābah—the former is found in about thirty places while the latter is not seen in more than ten. How can aṭā‘a and istaṭā‘a can be analogized with it?
As for the both words having the same meaning, it only means that two aspects of theses words fit on one place: Ajāba means that the answer went over from the answerable to the questioner, and istajāba means that the one who is answerable asked for the reply from himself and passed it on to the questioner.
It is now clear that what that exegete has explained istajābah with, is not correct; he has said: “Istajāba means that he asked for something and wanted it to give him the reply and it replied.” But the paradigm of istif‘āl indicates demand of fa‘ala, and not demand of af‘ala. And it is clear.
Third: The context does not agree with this interpretation. If we accept that their question, “Is your Lord able to send down to us food from heaven?” only meant: ‘Will your Lord be pleased that we ask Him (or you ask Him) to send down to us food from heaven?’ and that their only aim from this question or from this coming down was that their faith be strengthened and their hearts be at ease, then why Jesus should admonish them and say: “Fear God if you are believers?” And why should God threaten him who would disbelieve afterwards from among them with a chastisement with which He would not chastise any one in the worlds? While the fact remains that they had not spoken except truth and had not put except a proper request; and God Himself has said: … and ask Allah of His grace; … ()
Commentary continues:
He said: “Fear Allah if you are believers”: This admonition by Jesus came in response to their apparent questioning of his Lord’s ability to send down food from heaven, a query that inherently casts doubt. However, considering our interpretation, the true basis for this censure, culminating in severe threats, was their request for a sign when none was needed. Their suggestion seemed akin to trivializing divine signs. Additionally, the crude manner of their question suggested a lack of firm belief in God’s power. In this context, the reason for Jesus’s admonition becomes clearer.
قَالُوا نُرِيدُ أَنْ نَأْكُلَ مِنْهَا وَتَطْمَئِنَّ قُلُوبُنَا وَنَعْلَمَ أَنْ قَدْ صَدَقْتَنَا وَنَكُونَ عَلَيْهَا مِنَ الشَّاهِدِينَ ١١٣
(5:113) They said: “We desire that we should eat of it and that our hearts should be at rest, and that we may know that you have indeed spoken the truth to us and that we may be of the witnesses to it.”
It appears from the context that they offered this excuse in order to save themselves from his censure. This talk apparently is related to their demand for a sign by sending down the food; it does not refer to any imagined doubt that they would have entertained regarding God’s unrestricted power. This is another evidence that they were so admonished because they had asked for a sign when it was not needed at all.
As for their words: “We desire that we should eat of it … we may be of the witnesses to it.” The disciples have given four reasons for demanding this particular sign:
First: Eating of it: They wanted to point out that they had not intended playing with the signs of God; they wanted to eat of it, and it was a reasonable objective. We have said earlier that this explanation of the disciples was tantamount to their acceptance that they deserved the admonition by Jesus and the severe threatening by God to him who would disbelieve in the sign of the food.
Someone has said that they had mentioned eating in order to show their utmost need of food and that they could not find anything to satisfy their hunger.
Yet others have said that they meant to say: that we should be blessed by eating it.
However, you are aware that neither of the above reasons can be inferred from merely the word, eating. Had they intended either of the two reasons, which would really remove the censure, it was necessary for them to mention it clearly. As they did not mention any such thing in spite of its necessity in this context, obviously they had used eating in its general sense, inasmuch as it was a reasonable purpose, and it was one part of their objective in suggesting the coming down of the food.
Second: Tranquillity of hearts, that their hearts should be at rest, by the removal of notions, which were inconsistent with sincerity and presence.
Third: To recognize that Jesus had indeed truthfully conveyed God’s message. Here, ‘knowledge’ refers to the certainty that settles in one’s heart once it is free from devilish doubts and insinuations.
Alternatively, as some have suggested, this ‘knowledge’ could refer to the truth in Jesus’s promises regarding the outcomes of faith, such as the fulfillment of prayers.
However, this interpretation seems less likely. The disciples requested the food to come down specifically through Jesus’s prayer, as a miracle from him. They had already witnessed numerous signs and miracles performed by Jesus, who was consistently accompanied by significant divine signs. He had engaged with his community only with his Lord’s signs, so they were accustomed to seeing the fruits of his faith manifested through the acceptance of his prayers. If ‘fruit’ refers to the acceptance of Jesus’s prayers, then it aligns. But if it means acceptance of the disciples’ prayers, it contradicts the context, as they had not sought the sign through their own prayers; it descended solely due to Jesus’s invocation.
Fourth: Their request aimed to enable them to bear witness to this event, serving as evidence both in confrontations with disbelievers and before God on the Day of Resurrection. Thus, the concept of ‘witnessing’ here is broad and unrestricted. It might also specifically pertain to bearing witness before God, as suggested in their statement recorded in the Qur’an: “Our Lord! We believe in what Thou hast revealed and we follow the Messenger, so write us down with those who bear witness” ().
In essence, while justifying their request, they introduced appealing factors to their primary goal of experiencing heavenly food. This was an attempt to mitigate the seeming inappropriateness of asking for a sign after having already witnessed numerous signs. Ultimately, Jesus consented to their request, following their persistent appeal.
قَالَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ اللَّهُمَّ رَبَّنَا أَنْزِلْ عَلَيْنَا مَائِدَةً مِنَ السَّمَاءِ تَكُونُ لَنَا عِيدًا لِأَوَّلِنَا وَآخِرِنَا وَآيَةً مِنْكَ ۖ وَارْزُقْنَا وَأَنْتَ خَيْرُ الرَّازِقِينَ ١١٤
(5:114) Jesus the son of Mary said: “O Allah, our Lord! Send down to us food from heaven which should be to us an ever-recurring happiness, to the first of us and to the last of us, and a sign from Thee, and grant us sustenance, and Thou art the best of providers.”
He joined his own self with them in asking for the food; and began by calling to his Lord with a comprehensive word: “O God, our Lord!” They had said: “Is your Lord able …,” but he changed it so that the address would agree with the prayer.
This prayer is unique amongst all the prayers and invocations of the prophets (peace be upon them), quoted in the Qur’an. While all others begin with the word: ‘My Lord’ or ‘Our Lord’; this alone begins with: “O God, our Lord!” It is only because of the delicacy of the situation and the fright of appraisal. On the other hand, similar opening addresses are found in the various types of praises quoted in the Qur’an: Say: “Praise be to Allah …” (); Say: “O Allah, Master of Kingdom! …” (); Say: “O Allah! Originator of the heavens and the earth, …” ().
Then he presented a rationale for the request to send down this food, suggesting it should serve as a source of continuous joy for him and his followers. The disciples, in their initial request, hadn’t specified the desire for it to be an exclusive celebration for themselves. Instead, he framed the request in a more inclusive and positive manner. This approach was likely to prevent any perception of it merely being a demand for a sign in light of the numerous significant divine signs already witnessed. By reframing the request in this way, it became more palatable and in harmony with divine approval, avoiding any conflict with God’s majesty and greatness. Festivals, by their very nature, foster unity, rejuvenate communities, bring joy to participants, and are typically celebrated to mark the return of religious grandeur.
That is why he said: “an ever-recurring happiness, to the first of us and to the last of us,” that is, the first group of our nation and the other ones who would join them later—as the context shows. Because ‘īd (festival) is derived from ‘awd (return); so it would be ‘īd only if it returns time and again, in descendants after ancestors without any limit.
This festival exclusively belonged to the ummah of Jesus, and as explained earlier, this type of sign too was reserved for them.
... and a sign from Thee: First he puts up the question of ‘īd, and it was a good and beautiful thing free from all blemish; then he followed it by its being a sign from God. It was an extra benefit added to the main objective; it was not intended to be the only objective. Had it been the only purpose, that is, its being a sign asking for, it would have led to an unwanted result; because all good advantages which could be intended from it, were easily obtainable through the signs which the disciples and others were seeing from him every day.
... and grant us sustenance, and Thou art the best of providers: It is another benefit which he counted as resulting from that invocation of ‘īd, although it is not the intended purpose. The disciples had asked for it as the main intended purpose in itself, as they had said: “We desire that we should eat of it “ Thus, they had mentioned it as the thing intended for itself, and mentioned it before other items. But Jesus counted it as unintended for itself and put it at the end; also, he changed the word, eating, with that of sustenance, and added after it the phrase: “‘and Thou art the best of providers.’”
What they had treated as the main purpose, has been relegated by Jesus as a resulting benefit, only. Its proof may be seen in the fact that he first prayed for himself and his whole ummah the granting of ‘īd, which he had added to their suggestion. In this way, its becoming a sign of God and a sustenance, became two attributes which were reserved to some of them excluding the others, like a resulting benefit which is not all-encompassing.
Upon observing the exemplary and impressive etiquette displayed by Jesus towards his Lord, you will find it astonishing. Notice how he skillfully handled the wording of their request, enhancing and refining it, omitting certain parts, rearranging others, and modifying and preserving it. In doing so, he transformed their initial request, which was entirely unsuitable for presentation before God, into a beautifully crafted speech embodying the essence of devout servitude. Reflect deeply on the nuances of his speech, and you will be truly amazed.
قَالَ اللَّهُ إِنِّي مُنَزِّلُهَا عَلَيْكُمْ ۖ فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بَعْدُ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنِّي أُعَذِّبُهُ عَذَابًا لَا أُعَذِّبُهُ أَحَدًا مِنَ الْعَالَمِينَ ١١٥
(5:115) Allah said: “Surely I will send it down to you, but whoever shall disbelieve afterwards from among you, surely I will chastise him with a chastisement with which I will not chastise any one among the nations.”
The people of Medina and Syria as well as ʿĀṣim have recited it, munazziluhā with intensified pronunciation, and the others have recited munziluha without intensification—as has been described in Majmaʿ al-bayān. And the latter is more appropriate, because inzāl—from which munziluhā is derived—denotes being sent down all at once, and the food was sent down in this very manner. As for tanzīl—from which munazziluhā is derived—it is generally used for gradual coming down, as described earlier repeatedly.
The phrase “Surely I will send it down to you” represents a clear promise of the food’s descent. This is particularly evident when examining its linguistic structure. The original phrase translates to “I am its sender down,” utilizing the nomen agentis form rather than a verb. This construction unequivocally indicates that the food was indeed sent down to them.
Some exegetes have said that it was not sent down, as is quoted in al-Durr al-manthūr and Majmaʿ al-bayān, from al-Ḥasan and Mujāhid that they said: “It did not come down; because when they heard of the condition they abandoned their request and said: ‘We do not want it nor do we need it’; so it did not come down.”
But the verse in question definitively indicates that the food was indeed sent down. It contains a clear promise of its descent, and it is inconceivable that God would make such a forthright promise while knowing that the request would be withdrawn, preventing the food’s descent. The promise in the verse is explicit, and the subsequent condition specifies that anyone who disbelieves after the food’s descent would face an unparalleled punishment. In essence, the verse presents an unconditional promise to send down the food, with the punishment for disbelief attached as a separate clause. It does not suggest that the food’s descent was contingent on accepting the punishment for disbelief, such that the promise would be nullified if this condition was not accepted. Consequently, the food’s descent wouldn’t be hindered even if they retracted their request. This is an important point to grasp.
In this scenario, the divine promise to send down the food, coupled with the severe threat of punishment for disbelievers, does not signify a rejection of Jesus’s prayer. On the contrary, it appears to affirm his supplication. However, within this context, accepting the prayer could have implied that the sign would be an unbounded mercy, benefiting everyone from the first to the last. To address this, God introduced a specific condition. In essence, the text indicates that this festival, though exclusively reserved for them, would not be universally advantageous. It would be beneficial solely for the believers among them who maintained their faith. Conversely, for the disbelievers, this event would bring significant harm.
Thus, these two verses in their style are like the verses and 7:155–6. All these verses contain a general and unrestricted prayer and a restricted acceptance. (Those verses are as follows.)
And (remember) when his Lord tried Abraham with certain words, and he fulfilled them. He said: “Surely I am going to make you an Imām for men.” He (Abraham) said: “And of my offspring?” He said: “My covenant shall not include the unjust.” ().
“Thou art our Guardian, therefore forgive us and have mercy on us, and Thou art the best of the forgivers. And ordain for us good in this world and in the hereafter, for surely we proceed to Thee.” He said: “(As for) My chastisement, I will afflict with it whom I please, and My mercy encompasses all things; so I will ordain it for those who fear Allah and pay the zakāt, and those who believe in Our signs.” (7:155–6).
From the preceding discussion, it becomes clear that the reason for the specific chastisement threatened (which would be exclusive to them) stems from their request for a sign unique to them, not shared with any other nation. Consequently, when this request was fulfilled, they were warned that should they disbelieve in it, they would face a punishment equally unique and exclusive, mirroring the distinct privilege they had been granted.
This context makes it evident that ‘al-ʿālamīn’ (worlds or nations) encompasses all nations and is not limited to those existing during the time of Jesus. The term is connected to those who were distinguished among the people and therefore extends to all nations, not merely those present on Earth during Jesus’s era.
Additionally, it’s evident that while the sentence, “surely I will chastise him with a chastisement with which I will not chastise any one among the nations,” conveys a stern threat of severe punishment, it does not imply that this chastisement would surpass all other punishments in terms of severity or agony. Rather, it indicates that the punishment would be distinct, exclusively afflicting them among all the nations.
Examining Narrations
- Abū ʿAbdillāh explained the phrase: “Is your Lord able” in these words, “Are you able to pray to your Lord?” (Majmaʿu al-bayān)
Author’s comment: This meaning has been narrated through Sunnī chains from some companions and their followers, like ‘Āishah and Sa‘īd b. Jubayr. It returns to the meaning which we have shown earlier, because the query about Jesus’s power can only be correct if it refers to his ability from the view of reason and welfare, not about his actual power.
- ʿĪsā al-‘Alawī narrates from his father from Abū Jaʿfar that he said, “The table (of food) that was sent to the Children of Israel was suspended by golden chains; there were nine fish and nine loaves of bread on it.” (al-Tafsīr, al-ʿAyyāshī)
Author’s comment: In another version there is nine anwān (plural of nūn) in place of aḥwatah (plural of ḥūt); both have the same meaning, fish.
- ‘Ammār b. Yāsir narrates from the Prophet that he said, “The table came (with) bread and meat. It was because they had asked Jesus for an inexhaustible food which they would eat. He (The Prophet) said, ‘It was said to them, “Surely it will stay with you as long as you do not act treacherously, do not hide it and do not lift from it; but if you did so you will be punished.”’ He (The Prophet) said, ‘But the day did not come to its end until they hid it, lifted from it and acted treacherously.’” (Majmaʿ al-bayān)
Author’s comment: (al-Suyūṭī) has narrated it in al-Durru al-manthūr from al-Tirmidhī, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Ibn al-Anbārī, Abu al-Shaykh and Ibn Marduwayh, from Ammār b. Yāsir from the Prophet, and there is at its end the phrase: “so they were transformed into apes and swine.”
- Also, he writes in the same al-Durru al-manthūr: Ibn Jarīr, Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Abī Ḥātim have narrated a similar tradition in another way from ‘Ammār b. Yāsir as a mawqūf tradition. al-Tirmidhī has said that the waqf is more correct.
Author’s comment: What this report says that they had asked for an inexhaustible food which they would eat, does not fully agree with the verse, as appears from their words quoted herein, and that we may be of the witnesses to it, because a food that is never exhausted does not need any witness to testify for it—except if it means testifying before God on the Day of Resurrection.
Also, the report of their transformation into apes and swines, as what is apparent from the context, is the punishment with which they were threatened. But here it leaves open another door of argument. Because the divine words: “surely I will chastise him with a chastisement with which I will not chastise any one among the nations,” apparently show that they would be meted out with an exclusive punishment, not shared by any others; while the Qur’an clearly mentions that other people too were transformed into apes. God says: “Be apes, despised and hated.” (). And it is narrated in this connection through some chains of Ahl al-Bayt, that they were transformed into swines.
- al-Fuḍayl b. Yasār narrates from Abu al-Ḥasan that he heard him saying, “Swines were from the people of Jesus, they had asked for coming down of the table and then did not believe, so God transformed them into swines.” (al-Tafsīr, al-ʿAyyāshī)
- ʿAbdu al-Ṣamad b. Bandār said, “I heard Abu al-Ḥasan saying, ‘Swines were a community of bleachers, they denied the table, so they were transformed into swines.’” (ibid.)
Author’s comment: It is narrated in al-Kāfī from Muḥammad b. John, from Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, from Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Ash‘arī from Abu al-Ḥasan al-Riḍā that he said, “Elephant is transformed, it was a fornicating king; wolf is transformed, it was a cuckold Bedouin; rabbit is transformed, it was a woman who was disloyal to her husband and did not take bath after her menstruation; bat is transformed, it used to steal dates of the people; apes and swines are groups of the Children of Israel who had exceeded the limits of the Sabbath; eel and lizard were a group of the Children of Israel who did not believe when the table was sent down to Jesus son of Mary, so they became disoriented, one group fell in the sea and another in the land; mouse is a debaucher; scorpion was a slanderer; and bear, lizard and wasp were meat-sellers who defrauded in measure.”
This tradition does not go against the preceding two traditions, because it is possible that some of them were changed into swines, while some others were changed into eel and lizard. However, it is not free from another difficulty, as it mentions that the people of the Sabbath were changed into apes and swines, while this verse as well as a similar one in the chapter seven, mention, only their transformation into apes, and their context rejects their transformation into any other shape.