Session Five, Verse 57, Part Three

Session Five

Verse 57 – Part Three: “And They Did Not Wrong Us; Rather, It Was Themselves That They Were Wronging” – Points One Through Five

October 15, 2024

Part Three: “And They Did Not Wrong Us; Rather, It Was Themselves That They Were Wronging”

Our discussion concerned verse 57 of Surat al-Baqarah; we noted that this verse comprises three parts. We have already set forth the exegesis of the first two parts. The exegesis of the third part remains, and, God willing, in this brief opportunity we shall set this forth as well.

Point One

There is a point to be considered with regard to this part: does the wrong referred to in this section of the verse arise specifically from disregarding these two most recent blessings and from ingratitude toward them, or does it extend more broadly to these two blessings together with the preceding blessings? When God, Blessed and Exalted, says, “And they did not wrong Us; rather, it was themselves that they were wronging,” this indicates that they did not wrong Us, but rather wronged themselves. What is the intent of this section?

Two Possibilities

Here the verse intends to convey that, notwithstanding the blessing, the Children of Israel showed ingratitude (we shall presently note that there are two possibilities regarding the nature of this ingratitude); but was this ingratitude directed specifically toward these two blessings, or more broadly?

First possibility: if we adopt this possibility, its meaning is as follows: although they had fallen into bewilderment and wandering, wandering from hunger and thirst in that waterless, vegetation-less, and scorching desert, We provided for them both that source of shade and the descent of manna and quails; yet, rather than making measured use of those blessings, they indulged in excess. God had commanded them: “Eat of the good things We have provided for you,” and we noted that this was, in effect, a prohibition against hoarding and excess in eating; yet they both hoarded and engaged in extravagance, indulging in excessive eating. The wrongdoing of the Children of Israel with regard to these two specific blessings is thus applied in the following manner: they showed ingratitude toward these two blessings, in the sense that they appreciated neither the value of the shading nor the value of the sending down of manna and quails. This ingratitude, particularly with regard to manna and quails, consisted in their taking more than the amount they needed and hoarding it, even though they had been forbidden from doing so.

Second possibility: the other possibility is that the wrongdoing of the Children of Israel be understood, in fact, as ingratitude in the face of all the blessings, rather than specifically these two most recent ones. As we have noted thus far, God granted seven, eight, or nine blessings to the Children of Israel, yet they were not appreciative of any of these blessings and showed ingratitude. Naturally, if someone shows ingratitude toward their benefactor, they are reckoned as a wrongdoer; their wrongdoing was, in effect, this very ingratitude—verbal and practical, in speech and in conduct—toward God Almighty, their Benefactor, manifested again in complaint, grievance, and ingratitude, and which, in practice, also returned them toward disbelief, leading them to depart from monotheism, along with the whole array of matters with which you are familiar. Hence, from one angle, this section of the verse admits of two possible readings: whether this wrongdoing pertains specifically to the most recent blessing, or to the entirety of the blessings mentioned thus far.

Point Two

Another point concerns the very nature of this wrongdoing and ingratitude; what does this ingratitude mean? I have already made a brief allusion to this. Now, whether we refer the statement “And they did not wrong Us; rather, it was themselves that they were wronging” specifically to these two most recent blessings or to all the blessings, in either case this wrongdoing is, in essence, attributable to ingratitude.

Two Possibilities

As noted, there are two possibilities regarding the nature of this ingratitude:

First possibility: this wrongdoing may be due to disbelief in respect of these blessings—whether the most recent blessing, regarding which it was said, “Eat of the good things We have provided for you” (that is, they did not eat in due measure but ate more, and ought not to have hoarded yet did hoard, thereby wronging and showing disbelief regarding the blessing), or the entirety of the blessings. Disbelief in respect of a blessing thus means, in effect, disregarding the blessings of God, Blessed and Exalted.

Second possibility: it may be that what is fundamentally intended is any and all transgression of the divine command. For instance, when someone grants a blessing to another and is thereby reckoned as their benefactor, gratitude toward that benefactor becomes obligatory upon them; in our theological discussions, we hold that one of the proofs for the obligation of obedience toward God, Blessed and Exalted, and toward those whom God, Blessed and Exalted, has designated, is the obligation of gratitude toward the Benefactor. After all, the Benefactor has shown kindness, and we must be appreciative; gratitude toward the Benefactor is realized through obedience, not merely through verbal expressions of thanks. Practical gratitude and obedience toward the Benefactor constitute the highest degree of gratitude—indeed, the obligatory degree of it. On this basis, one possibility regarding this ingratitude is that, notwithstanding all these blessings and the kindness that God showed to the Children of Israel, they remained ungrateful, failed to obey, and transgressed the divine commands that were, in fact, in their own best interest; this ingratitude is, in effect, a wrong against themselves. Thus, on this front too, there are two possibilities.

Of course, if we take the subsequent verses into account, we might say that “And they did not wrong Us” refers specifically to these two most recent blessings, since what follows goes on to refer to certain matters connected with them—though the following verse presents a single instance and example of their ingratitude and conduct. We may therefore say that this section, in one sense, pertains to all the preceding blessings, and that the ingratitude of the Children of Israel pertains to all the preceding blessings—namely, that notwithstanding those blessings, and indeed even after repeated instances of ingratitude and God’s pardon and forbearance toward them, they still did not desist from their ingratitude.

This possibility—that we refer this back to all the preceding blessings—appears to be the more evident and preferable possibility. For the bulk of the blessings have been enumerated up to this point; hence God intends to convey that We granted them all these blessings, yet in return, they showed ingratitude. This, then, is a further point regarding whether this statement connects specifically to the two most recent blessings or to the entirety of the preceding blessings.

Point Three

God, Blessed and Exalted, states here that this wrongdoing was a wrong against themselves, and not a wrong against Us: “And they did not wrong Us; rather, it was themselves that they were wronging.” This, in fact, points to a clear and evident matter: these wretched people imagined that they were wronging Us; no! They neither wrong Us, nor did they wrong Us; rather, they wronged themselves. For just as wrongdoing on the part of God, Blessed and Exalted, is rationally impossible, so too is it rationally impossible for God to be the recipient of wrongdoing; that is, no one can wrong God. Both God’s being a wrongdoer and God’s being wronged are impossible; this is a matter of great importance. Given the description and definition we hold of God’s absolute power, and given that we regard Him as pure being, it is fundamentally impossible for anyone to be able to wrong God. The susceptibility of God to wrongdoing, and His being wronged, within the realm of creation, is certainly impossible. Now, within the domain of legislative matters, yes, transgression of God’s command is indeed a wrong against God; but fundamentally, wherever wrongdoing toward God is spoken of, this returns to the wrongdoer himself, for otherwise, in terms of creation, wrongdoing against God is impossible. Hence, the statement “And they did not wrong Us; rather, it was themselves that they were wronging” in fact points to a truth which I have noted, namely, that with respect to God, Blessed and Exalted, both the capacity to wrong and the susceptibility to being wronged are alike impossible.

Point Four

A fourth point is that God, Blessed and Exalted, has restricted the return of wrongdoing exclusively to the wrongdoers themselves. He says: “And they did not wrong Us; rather, it was themselves that they were wronging”; they alone, and only they, were wronging themselves. Let them not imagine that they were wronging Us, and let you too not imagine that they were wronging Us; they alone, and only they, were wronging themselves. They cannot wrong Us at all, for it is impossible; the wrongdoing has been restricted to themselves alone, along with the impossibility of wronging God. This restrictive sense (hasr) may be derived from this very grammatical construction; the negation and affirmation within this sentence themselves convey restriction—they alone wronged themselves. There is, moreover, a further indication of this restriction, namely the fronting of “themselves” (anfusahum) ahead of “they were wronging” (yazlimun); since “themselves” functions as the object, and the fronting of the object before the verb conveys restriction.

Point Five

One further point remains. Here, God, Blessed and Exalted, shifts from direct address to the third person; up to this point, the address had been directed to the Children of Israel: He said, “And We shaded you with clouds and sent down upon you manna and quails,” “eat,” “that We have provided for you”—all of these are addressed to the Children of Israel. But here, the mode of address suddenly changes; that is, the Children of Israel are no longer the addressee, but are instead spoken of in the third person, and the verse states: they did not wrong Us, but rather wronged only themselves. This shift from direct address to the third person may be justified on several grounds:

1. It seeks, in a certain sense, to indicate their unworthiness; that is, as though they no longer merit being directly addressed. At first, the address is directed to them; then it says that they themselves did this—here it does not say, “We told them: you have wronged yourselves.” It thus essentially seeks to diminish their standing and station.
2. Up to this point, the verse was in the mode of relating these events to the Prophet, peace be upon him; from this point onward, it seeks to draw a lesson from these events for the people of the Prophet’s own time. It seeks to issue a warning that, while they did these things, they wronged only themselves and did not wrong Us.
3. Their ingratitude was sustained and continuous; the verse states that We granted all these blessings, yet they transgressed and showed ingratitude continually—yet they wronged only themselves. The verbs “kanu” (they were) and “yazlimun” (they were wronging) convey continuity; that is, they persisted continuously in this ingratitude. This very continuity strips them of any standing or worthiness to be directly addressed.

In effect, here God, Blessed and Exalted, seeks to convey to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and to the Prophet’s companions, that they should remain hopeful, while the Jews of the Prophet’s own time should take heed that, should they show ingratitude, they will see its consequence. This conveys both a message of hope to the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, and his companions, and a warning to the Jews of the Prophet’s time, that should they act in this manner, this wrongdoing will fall upon themselves, and not upon Us.

Topic of the Next Session

In light of these matters, God willing, we shall begin verse 58 in the coming session.