Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

CHAPTER 5, VERSES 112-115

إِذْ قَالَ الْحَوَارِيُّونَ يَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ هَلْ يَسْتَطِيعُ رَبُّكَ أَن يُنَزِّلَ عَلَيْنَا مَائِدَةً مِّنَ السَّمَاءِۖ قَالَ اتَّقُوا اللَّـهَ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ ﴿١١٢﴾ قَالُوا نُرِيدُ أَن نَّأْكُلَ مِنْهَا وَتَطْمَئِنَّ قُلُوبُنَا وَنَعْلَمَ أَن قَدْ صَدَقْتَنَا وَنَكُونَ عَلَيْهَا مِنَ الشَّاهِدِينَ ﴿١١٣﴾ قَالَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ اللَّـهُمَّ رَبَّنَا أَنزِلْ عَلَيْنَا مَائِدَةً مِّنَ السَّمَاءِ تَكُونُ لَنَا عِيدًا لِّأَوَّلِنَا وَآخِرِنَا وَآيَةً مِّنكَۖ وَارْزُقْنَا وَأَنتَ خَيْرُ الرَّازِقِينَ ﴿١١٤﴾ قَالَ اللَّـهُ إِنِّي مُنَزِّلُهَا عَلَيْكُمْۖ فَمَن يَكْفُرْ بَعْدُ مِنكُمْ فَإِنِّي أُعَذِّبُهُ عَذَابًا لَّا أُعَذِّبُهُ أَحَدًا مِّنَ الْعَالَمِينَ ﴿١١٥﴾

When the disciples said: “O ‘Īsã son of Maryam! Is your Lord able to send down to us food from heaven?” He said: “Fear Allãh if you are believers.” (112). 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.” (113). ‘Īsã the son of Maryam said: “O Allãh, 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.” (114). Allãh said: “Surely I will send it down to you, but whoever shall dis-believe afterwards from among you, surely I will chastise him with a chastisement with which I will not chastise any one among the nations.” (115).

* * * * *

COMMENTARY

The verses describe the story of coming down of the table on Christ (a.s .) and his companions. Although they do not say clearly that Allãh sent it down to them, yet the last verse contains the uncondi-tional divine promise of sending it down to them; and He has men-tioned His attribute that He does not break His promise.

Some people's opinion, that they saught pardon from ‘Īsã (a.s.) when they heard the threat of unprecedented chastisement for those who would disbelieve after coming of the table, is an opinion without any proof from the Book or trustworthy hadīth.

This view has been narrated from a group of the exegetes, among them being al-Mujãhid and al-Hasan; and their or others' views are no proof at all. Even if their views were supposed to be traditions, they would be of incomplete chains of narrators, and such items are not fit as proof because of their weakness. Moreover, they are opposed by other traditions, which show that the table was sent down. Even if they were correct they would be only 'solitary' traditions, which are not relied upon except in matters of jurisprudence.

Sometimes proof is offered of not coming down of the table by the fact that the Christians do not know about it and their holy books do not mention it; had it been sent down to them there were many reasons to describe it in their books and to keep it alive in their society as they have preserved the memory of the Last Super - the Euchrist.

However, a man who knows the history of Christianity - as how it spread and how the gospels appeared on the scene - would not care about such utterances; because neither their books were written and preserved with tawãtur since the time of ‘Īsã (a.s.), nor the present Christianity reaches upto him, so that it might be useful in what they have received generation after generation, or in that which they do not know from what is attributed to the Christ's Call.

Of course, in some Gospels there is the story of his feeding his disciples and some other people with a little bread and fish. But that story does not agree with the Qur’ãnic statement in any of its particulars.

The Gospel According to St. John, chapter 6 says:

1. After these thing Jesus went over thesea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.

2. And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

3. And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.

4. And thepassover , a feast of the Jews, was nigh.

5. When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buybread, that these may eat?

6. And this he said to prove him: forhe himself knew what he would do.

7. Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.

8. One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him.

9. There is a lad here,which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.

13. Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve buskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.

14. 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.

15. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a moun-tain himself alone. (John, 6:1-15)

Moreover, if we ponder on this story as given in the Divine Book, Qur’ãn, we find in it other aspects that require contemplation. The initial question in the beginning of the story totally lacks the manners, which must be maintained vis-à-vis Allãh. And it ends at the threat which Allãh has threatened those who shall disbelieve afterwards that He would chastise them with a chastisement with which He would not chastise anyone among the nations. Its like is not found in any sign given by Allãh to His prophets, nor in any that were suggested by their people, like the suggestions of the nations of Nūh, Hūd, Sãlih, Shu‘ayb, Mūsã and Muhammad (s.a.w.a.).

Was it because the disciples, who had asked it, had shown lack of manners in their questioning, because they had used words, which show their doubt about the divine power? However, we find in the demands of the preceding nations insults to the majesty of their Lord, and mock-ery against their prophets, as well as what we see in the Qur’ãn of the stories of the arrogance of the people of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and of the Jews who lived at that time, is more impertinent and more dis-gusting than it.

Or was it because they, being believers before this question and coming down of the table, became disbelievers after its coming down and observation of clear signs, and therefore invited such severe threat-ening. However, although disbelief after seeing clear signs is a great haughtiness and over-stepping the limits, but it was not confined to them, as such examples are found in every nation and they were not threatened in such a harsh manner - not even those who apostasized after being placed nearer to the divine proximity, like the one whom Allãh mentions in these words: 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 (7:175).

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 vari-ous types: There were the miracles which Allãh gave to the prophets when He sent them to the peoples, in order that it should serve as the proof to support their claims of prophethood or messengership, as Mūsã (a.s.) was given the bright hand and staff; and ‘Īsã (a.s.) was enabled to raise the dead to life, create the bird and heal the blind and the lepers; and Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) was given the Qur’ãn. 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; . [8:42].

There were the miracles brought by the prophets and the mess-engers as a result of the disbelievers' suggestions, like the she-camel of Sãlih; in the same category come the dreadful happenings and tor-menting chastisements which appeared in the course of the prophetic Calls, like the signs of Mūsã (a.s.) against the people of Pharash (locust, lice, forgs, etc. totalling seven signs), flood of Nūh, earthquake of Thamūd, storm of ‘Ãd and similar things. These too were the signs connected to the disbelieving enemies.

There were the signs shown by Allãh to the believers for fulfil-ling 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 arrogants 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 Allãh in His Book to the believers for manifesting the honour of His Messenger (s.a.w.a.), e.g. 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 theQur’ãn 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 non-sense that should not be paid attention to: For example, the proposal of the People of the Book that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) should bring for them a book from the heavens, while the Qur’ãn was present before their eyes. Allãh says: The People of the Book ask you to bring down to them a book from heaven; so indeed they had demanded of Mūsã a greater thing than that, for they said: “Show us Allãh manifestly”; . But Allãh 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 Allãh for a witness (4:153; 166).

Likewise, the polytheists had asked the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) that he should bring down the angels or should show Allãh to them. Allãh says: And those who do not hope forOur 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 (25:21). 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 likenessdo they apply to you, so they have gone astray; therefore they shall not be able to find a way (25:7-9). 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 com-plete. 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, play with the Lord's majesty and wavering in acceptance of reality; and it is the greatest arrogance and haughtiness.

Such behaviour, if shown by believers, would entail cruder offence and greater sin. Why should a believer ask for coming down of a heavenly sign while he is already abeliever, and especially so if he is one of those who have seen the divine signs and believed after that observation? Would it not be similar to the suggestions, which the people of pleasure, surrounded with luxury, in gatherings of entertain-ments and assemblies of amusements, offer to the magicians and prac-titioners of legerdemain, in order that they should show to them the most astonishing jugglery and the most wonderous activity that they can perform?

What appears from the words: When the disciples said: “O ‘Īsã son of Maryam! Is your Lord able to send down to us food from heaven?” that they had asked the Christ (a.s.) 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 (a.s.) 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 Allãh's leave; and I heal the blind and the leper, and bring to life the dead, by Allãh's leave . .'“ (3:49).

And how can it be imagined about him who believed in Christ (a.s.) that he would not have seen any sign from him, while he (a.s.) in his own existence was a sign: Allãh 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 hon-oured by one sign after another until Allãh 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 tanta-mount to suggesting a sign after a sign; thus they committed a great offence, and that is why ‘Īsã (a.s.) admonished them, saying: “Fear Allãh 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 wonderous 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 (i.e. present construction).

When they insisted, ‘Īsã (a.s.) agreed to their demand and asked his Lord to honour 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 (a.s .) presented it in a manner suitable to be addressed to the Divine Majesty, so he said: “O Allãh, 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 re-served, to them from among the people, and the coming down of the table has this particular attribute.

When ‘Īsã (a.s.) 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 invoca-tion - his Lord accepted his prayer, but with one proviso, that whoever among his people would disbelieve afterwards, Allãh 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.

QUR’ÃN: When the disciples said: “O ‘Īsã son of Maryam! Is your Lord able to send down to us food from heaven?”: '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 Allãh; 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 ‘Īsã:“ '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 ‘Īsã (a.s.), to bear witness that they were submitters.

COMMENT: This interpretation goes against the context. How could their belief be impure, when Allãh Himself had revealed to them to believe in Him and His Messenger?And when Allãh counts it as His favour to ‘Īsã (a.s.). Apart from that, if this verse was joined to the preceding one, it should have brought pronoun and not said: “When thedisciples said.”al-Mãidah (اَلْمَاِئدَة = plate when it contains food).ar-Rãghib has said: “al-Mãidah is the plate that contains food; and both [plate and food] are separately called mãidah; and it is said: 'Mãdanī yumīdunī', i.e. 'He fed me.'“

The wording of their question, i.e., “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 Allãh 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-Kasã’ī, one of the seven reciters, has recited this verse as: hal tastatī‘u (second person singular) rabbaka (as an object); i.e. '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 Allãh - 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 occurance 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 under-lying 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,' i.e. the reason of protecting the wealth does not demand it. Or as it is said: 'A knowledgeable person cannot disseminate all that he knows,' i.e. 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 com-panion: '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 Allãh's power. In a way, it is the same mode as Allãh quotes in the story of Ibrãhīm (a.s .) 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.” . (2:260).

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 Ibrãhīm (a.s.) so that it could be an independent proof for inter-preting their talk in a way free from rancour. 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 Ibrãhīm [a.s .] 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 Ibrãhīm said: “My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead.” . ., that he (a.s .) 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 observa-tion, as he (a.s .) 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 Allãh'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-encompass-ing divine power; but the unsuitability of their talk to manners of ser-vitude 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,' i.e. 'Are you able to ask Him without there being anyone to dissuade you from it.'

COMMENT: This supposed omission and implication cannot turn the word: '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 per-son 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 ‘Īsã (a.s.) to his Lord, because his action is in reality Allãh's action, or because everything attributed to him belongs to Allãh. But to begin with this explanation is wrong be-cause only those actions of prophets and messengers are attributed to Allãh which do not bring any defect or short-coming to His majesty, e.g. 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 attribu-tion 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-Istitã‘ah (ability) is used here in the meaning of al-itã‘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 Allãh would obey His messenger is more hideous and repulsive than the query about His capability.

Someone has supported this explanation as follows:al-Istitã‘ah (اَلإِسْتِطَاعَة ) andal-itã‘ah (اَلإِطَاعَة ) both are derived from the roott-w -‘ ( طوع = obedience) which is opposite ofkurh (كُرْه = dislike); thus obeying an order means doing it with pleasure and free will; the paradigm ofal-istif‘ãl (اَلإِسْتِفْعَال ) from this stem is like that of this paradigm from the stem (jawb). In other words, asistijãbah (اِسْتِجَابَة ) gives the mean-ing ofijãbah (اِجَابَة = to accept prayer), likewise istitã‘ah indicates itã‘ah; thusistatã‘ahu (اِسْتَطَاعَهُ ) meansatã‘ahu (أَطَاعَهُ = '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”, i.e. Will He do this work by His own free will and pleasure, without any compulsion? In short, it means that: Will your Lordbe pleased to send down to us food from heaven, when we ask Him, or when you ask it from Him on our behalf?

COMMENT:

First: All that he has done is to correlate istatã‘a with istajãbah, and give to the former the later's meaning. But using analogy in langu-age is not allowed.

Second: That both istitã‘ah and itã‘ah are derived from taw‘ which is opposite ofkurh (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) andadhraba (he went on strike);qabila (he accepted),aqbala (he came forward),qabbala (he kissed),qãbala (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: istitã‘ah has been used in more than forty places in the Divine Book, and everywhere it gives the meaning of ability. And the word: atã‘ah is used in nearly seventy places, and everywhere it gives the meaning of obedience. Also, wherever the word:taw‘ has been used it denotes 'opposite of dislike'. Now, how can the word: istitã‘a be taken to mean itã‘a, and this in its turn be taken to meantaw‘ ? And how can it be then claimed that ability here means pleasure or liking?

As for ajãba and istajãba, both have been used in theQur’ãn in the same meaning; and istajãbah has been used several times more than ajãbah - the former is found in about thirty places while the latter is not seen in more than ten. How can atã‘a and istatã‘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: Ajãba means that the answer went over from the answerable to the questioner, and istajãba 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 istajãbah with, is not correct; he has said: “Istajãba means that he asked for something and wanted it to give him the reply and it replied.” But the paradigm of istif‘ãl indicates demand of fa‘ala, and not demand ofaf‘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 ‘Īsã (a.s.) should admonish them and say: “Fear Allãh if you are believers?” And why should Allãh threaten him who would disbelieve afterwards from among them with a chastisement with which He would not chas-tise 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 Allãh Himself has said: . and ask Allãh of His grace; . (4:32)

QUR’ÃN: He said: “Fear Allãh if you are believers.”: ‘Īsã (a.s .) admonished them because apparently they had questioned the ability of his (a.s.)'s Lord to send down food from heaven; this speech creates doubt in any case. However, in view of the interpretation given by us, that the actual reason of this censure which ended with the severe threatening, was that they had asked for a sign when there was no need of it, and suggested what was tantamount to playing with divine signs; add to it their ugly style of the question which apparently showed that their hearts had not firmly believed in the power of Allãh; in this back-drop, the reason of ‘Īsã (a.s.)'s admonition becomes more manifest.

QUR’ÃN: 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 Allãh's unrestricted power. This isanother evidence that they were so admon-ished 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 Allãh; they wanted to eat of it, and it was a reasonable objective. We have said earlier that this explana-tion of the disciples was tantamount to their acceptance that they deserved the admonition by ‘Īsã (a.s.) and the severe threatening by Allãh 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 necess-ary 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 ofhearts, that their hearts should be at rest, by the removal of notions, which were inconsistent with sincerity and presence.

Third: To know that ‘Īsã (a.s.) had indeed spoken the truth in conveying the divine message to them. Knowledge here means that certainty which comes into the heart when devilish notions and insinu-ations are removed from it.

Or, as someone has said, the knowledge that he (a.s .) had spoken to them the truth in what he (a.s.) had promised them as the fruits of faith, like acceptance of invocations.

However, this interpretation looks unlikely because the disciples had not asked for coming down of the food except through ‘Īsã (a.s.)'s invocation, i.e. as a miracle from him (a.s.), and they had already seen numerous signs and miracles on his (a.s.)'s hand; because he (a.s.) was always accompanied by great divine signs; he was not sent to his com-munity, nor had he (a.s.) put a call to them except with the signs of his Lord; so they were always seeing the fruits of his faith in the form of the acceptance of his invocation - if the fruit means acceptance of his (a.s.)'s invocation. But if the fruit is taken to mean acceptance of their own invocation, then [it would be against the context, because] they had not demanded coming down of the sign through their own invoca-tion, and it did not come down but by ‘Īsã (a.s .)'s invocation.

Fourth: That they might be of the witnesses thereof, wherever wit-nessing would be needed, like giving witness before the disbelievers and on the Day of Resurrection before Allãh. So, witnessing here is unrestricted. Also, possibly it may refer only to the witnessing before Allãh, as appears in their talk quoted by Allãh, inter alia: “Our Lord! We believe in what Thou hast revealed and we follow the Messenger, so write us down with those who bear witness.” (3:53)

In short, while pleading in their defence, they added some beau-tiful and likeable factors to their other objective, i.e. partaking from heavenly food. They did so in order to remove the ugliness from their demanding a sign after already seeing sufficient signs; then ‘Īsã (a.s.) agreed to their demand after their persistence.

QUR’ÃN: ‘Īsã the son of Maryam said: “O Allãh, our Lord! Send down to us food from heaven which should be to us an ever-recur-ring 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 (a.s.) joined his own self with them in asking for the food; and began by calling to his Lord with a comprehensive word: “O Allãh, 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’ãn. While all others begin with the word: 'My Lord' or 'Our Lord'; this alone begins with: “O Allãh, our Lord!” It is only because of the delicacy of the situation and the fright of appraisal. On the other hand, similar open-ing addresses are found in the various types of praises quoted in the Qur’ãn: Say: “Praise be to Allãh . .” (27:59); Say: “O Allãh, Master of Kingdom! . .” (3:26); Say: “O Allãh! Originator of the heavens and theearth, . .” (39:46).

Then he (a.s .) mentioned a heading for this sent down food, which would serve as a reason for his and his companions' request that it be sent down, and it is that it should be to them an ever-recurring happiness, to him and his people. The disciples had not mentioned in their demand that they wanted it to be an exclusive festival to them. But he (a.s .) asked for it in a general style and moulded it into a good mould, in order that it would not be thought as a demand for a sign while there already were so many great divine signs before their eyes and within their observation. In this way, it would become a demand likeable by Allãh, and not in clash with His majesty and greatness; because a festival by its very nature unites the word, revives the com-munity, enlivens the celebrants and is announced whenever the grandeur of religion returns.

That is why he said: “an ever-recurring happiness, to the first of us and to the last of us,” i.e. the first group of our nation and the other ones who would join them later - as the context shows. Because‘īd (عِيْدُ = festival) is derived from‘awd (عَوْدُ = 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 ‘Īsã (a.s .), 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 fol-lowed it by its being a sign from Allãh. 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, i.e. 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 (a.s.) 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 ‘Īsã (a.s.) 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 mainpurpose, has been relegated by ‘Īsã (a.s.) as a resulting benefit, only. Its proof may be seen in the fact that he (a.s .) 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 Allãh 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.

When you will look at his (a.s .)'s fine and brilliant good man-ners vis-à-vis his Lord, you will be astonished. See how he (a.s .) took the wording of their demand, then added to it, omitted from it, altered the sequence and changed and preserved, until their original talk which was totally unfit to be presented before Allãh, turned into a beautiful speech containing the good manners of servitude. Just meditate on the proviso of his (a.s .)'s speech, you will be amazed.

QUR’ÃN: Allãh 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 ‘Ãsim have recited it,munazziluhã (مُنَزِّلُهَا ) with intensified pronunciation, and the others have recitedmunziluha (مُنْزِلُهَا ) without intensification - as has been described in Majma‘u 'l-bayãn. And the latter is more appro-priate, becauseinzãl (إِنْزَال ) - from whichmunziluhã (مُنْزِلُهَ ) is derived - denotes being sent down all at once, and the food was sent down in this very manner. As fortanzīl (تَنْزِيْل ) - from which munazziluhã is derived - it is generally used for gradual coming down, as described earlier repeatedly.

The phrase: “Surely I will send it down to you” is an unambigu-ous promise to send the food down, especially when we see its struc-ture: the original phrase literally means: I am its sender down, i.e. it uses the paradigm of nomen agentis, and not of a verb; and it inevi-tably means that the food was indeed sent down to them.

Some exegetes have said that it was not sent down, as is quoted in ad-Durru 'l-manthūr and Majma‘u 'l-bayãn, from al-Hasan and Mujãhid 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 fact is that the verse clearly shows that it was sent down, as it contains clear promise of its coming down, and far be it from Allãh that He should magnanimously give a clear promise when He knew that they would give up their demand so it would not be sent down; the promise given in the verse is quite clear, and the condition men-tioned in it says that those who would disbelieve after its coming down would be given unparallelled chastisement. In other words, the verse contains unconditional promise of sending the food down, and then it attaches the chastisement to disbelief. It does not say that it would be sent down provided they accepted the chastisement for disbelief, so that the promise would be cancelled if they did not accept the said condition, and then the food would not be sent if they gave up their demand. Understand it.

In any case, the divine promise to send the food conjoined with severe threat of disbelievers' chastisement was not a rejection of ‘Īsã (a.s .)'s prayer, rather it apparently accepts his invocation. However, as this acceptance of the prayer, in this context, would have apparently shown that that sign would be an unrestricted mercy which would be enjoyed by the first of them and the last of them, Allãh restricted it with the attached proviso. In short, it shows that this festival, which is exclusively reserved to them, would not benefit all of them, it would be beneficial only to the believers among them who would continue in their belief, but as for the disbelievers they would be harmed by it, extreme harm.

Thus, these two verses in their style are like the verses 2:124 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 Ibrãhīm with certain words, and he fulfilled them. He said: “Surely I am going to make you an Imãm for men.” He (Ibrãhīm) said: “And of my offspring?” He said: “My covenant shall not include the unjust.” (2:124).

“. . 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 Allãh and pay the zakãt, and those who believe in Our signs.” (7:155-6).

You have understood from the above that the actual reason for this threatened chastisement (which would be restricted to them) is that they had demanded a sign of a type that would be reserved to them and no other nation would share in it with them. So, when that demand was granted they were threatened on disbelieving in it a chastisement that no one else would share with them, just like the distinction granted to them.

It is apparent from it thatal-‘ãlamīn (اَلْعَالَمِيْن = worlds, nations) refers to all nations, not only those who were present at that time, because it is related to those whom they distinguished among the people; and it covers all nations, not only those who were in the days of ‘Īsã (a.s.) from among the nations of the earth.

Also, it is clear that although the sentence: “surely I will chastise him with a chastisement with which I will not chastise any one among the nations”, is a very tough threat of a miserable punishment, yet the talk does not say that the chastisement would be above all punish-ments and retributions in hardship and agony; it rather says that the punishment would be unique which they alone would be afflicted with among the nations.

TRADITIONS

Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s .) explained the phrase: “Is your Lord able” in these words, “Are you able to pray to your Lord?” (Majma‘u 'l-bayãn)

The author says: This meaning has been narrated through Sunnī chains from some companions and their followers, like ‘Ãishah and Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr. It returns to the meaning which we have shown earlier, because the querry about ‘Īsã (a.s .)'s power can only be correct if it refers to his ability from the view of reason and welfare, not about his actual power.

‘Īsã al-‘Alawī narrates from his father from AbūJa‘far (a.s.) 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.” (at-Tafsīr , al-‘Ayyãshī)

The author says: In another version there is nineanwãn (أَنْوَان = plural ofnūn نُون ) in place ofahwatah (أَحْوَتَه = plural ofhūt حُوت ); both have the same meaning, fish.

‘Ammãr ibn Yãsir narrates from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) that he said, “The table came (with) bread and meat. It was because they had asked ‘Īsã (a.s.) 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.'“ ( Majma‘u 'l-bayãn)

The author says: [as-Suyūtī] has narrated it in ad-Durru 'l-manthūr from at-Tirmidhī, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Abī Hãtim, Ibnu 'l-Anbãrī, Abu 'sh-Shaykh and Ibn Marduwayh, from ‘Ammãr ibn Yãsir from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), and there is at its end the phrase: “so they were transformed into apes and swine.”

Also, he writes in the same ad-Durru 'l-manthūr: Ibn Jarīr, Ibnu 'l-Mundhir and Ibn Abī Hãtim have narrated a similar tradition in another way from ‘Ammãr ibn Yãsir as a mawqūf tradition.at-Tirmidhī has said that the waqf is more correct.

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 Allãh 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 chastise-ment with which I will not chastise any one among the nations”, appar-ently show that they would be meted out with an exclusive punishment, not shared by any others; while the Qur’ãn clearly mentions that other people too were transformed into apes. Allãh says: “Be apes, despised and hated.” (2:65).And it is narrated in this connection through some chains of Ahlu 'l-Bayt (a.s.), that they were transformed into swines.

al-Fudayl ibn Yasãr narrates from Abu 'l-Hasan (a.s.) that he heard him saying, “Swines were from the people of ‘Īsã, they had asked for coming down of the table and then did not believe, so Allãh transformed them into swines.” (at-Tafsīr , al-‘Ayyãshī)

‘Abdu 's -Samad ibn Bandãr said, “I heard Abu 'l-Hasan (a.s.) saying, 'Swines were a community of bleachers, they denied the table, so they were transformed into swines.'“ ( ibid.)

The author says: It is narrated in al-Kãfī from Muhammad ibn Yahyã, from Ahmad ibn Muhammad, from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Ash‘arī from Abu 'l-Hasan ar-Ridã (a.s.) 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 dis-loyal 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 ‘Īsã son of Maryam, so they became disoriented, one group fell in the sea and another in the land; mouse is a debaucherer; 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 transform-ation into apes, and their context rejects their transformation into any other shape.

* * * * *