Session Nine, Verses 58 and 59, The Five Parts of Verse 58, Part One

Session Nine

Verses 58 and 59 – The Five Parts of Verse 58 – Part One: “And [Recall] When We Said: Enter This Town” – Point Three: The Four Possibilities Regarding the Town – First Possibility: Jerusalem – Second Possibility: Jericho

October 30, 2024

Summary of the Previous Session

In the first part of verse 58, there are several points to address; we set forth the first point in the previous session, namely that the command to enter the town is an obligatory command, rather than one of mere license indicating permissibility. The second point was likewise set forth.

Point Three

The third point is that “town” (qaryah) here carries the meaning of a region bearing certain manifestations of civilization, rather than the meaning of a village. That is, a place capable of accommodating a sizable population, possessing the resources necessary for this population to live there, as well as an abundance of blessings; for the verse states, “and eat freely therein wherever you wish” («فَكُلُوا مِنْهَا حَيْثُ شِئْتُمْ رَغَدًا»), which points to the existence of abundant blessings actually present in that region. Hence, qaryah carries this meaning — that is, a region possessing both the necessary resources and the capacity to accommodate them. In any case, a number of people were living there; it was not the case that it was a mere village.

The Four Possibilities Regarding the Town

The principal question, however, is this: to which region, city, or land does this town correspond? What is its referent? There are four possibilities here. One is that it is Jerusalem; the second, that it was Egypt itself; the third, that it is Jericho; and the fourth, that it is a larger region encompassing the lands of Syria (al-Shamat) together with a portion of Palestine, of which Jerusalem too formed a part.

First Possibility: Jerusalem

The possibility that it was Egypt apparently has little support among the exegetes, and indeed al-Razi mentions this as a view without attributing it to any particular proponent. The other three possibilities, however, do have their proponents: one is that what is meant is Jerusalem, a position to which some — including Qatadah, Abu Muslim al-Isfahani, and certain other exegetes — have committed themselves, and for which they have likewise put forward arguments. Some, such as Ibn ‘Abbas, have said that what is meant is Jericho, which is likewise a place near Jerusalem. Some have regarded this as a broader region encompassing both Jericho and Jerusalem. The principal basis for these views consists of various pieces of evidence.

The first possibility — that what is meant is Jerusalem — is supported by appeal to the verse: “O my people, enter the holy land which God has ordained for you, and do not turn back, lest you become losers” («يَا قَوْمِ ادْخُلُوا الْأَرْضَ الْمُقَدَّسَةَ الَّتِي كَتَبَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ وَلَا تَرْتَدُّوا عَلَى أَدْبَارِكُمْ فَتَنْقَلِبُوا خَاسِرِينَ»). It is said that this holy land, which they were commanded to enter and which God ordained for them, and concerning which He forbade them from turning back — lest they become losers — is this very Jerusalem. This same content, it is said, is repeated here as well: “And [recall] when We said: Enter this town” («وَإِذْ قُلْنَا ادْخُلُوا هَذِهِ الْقَرْيَةَ»). If we take the command to enter the holy land and the command to enter this town to be one and the same, this could naturally serve as evidence that what is meant by “town” is Jerusalem. There is, however, a further possibility here, namely that these are two separate commands; we shall set this forth under both possibilities.

First supposition: one possibility is that the command to enter the town is precisely the same command as that to enter the holy land — that is, that it is a single command. If this is the case, then it corresponds to Jerusalem. Now, is this correct? That is, even if we were to reckon this as a single command, would it necessarily correspond to Jerusalem?

Objection: the objection is that the verse in Surat al-Ma’idah relates to a time when the Children of Israel had not yet fallen into wandering in that land; there, the command to enter the holy land was given prior to this period of wandering; but this verse relates to a time after that period of wandering. There is a gap of forty years here; one command relates to forty years earlier, and the other to forty years afterward. The wandering of the Children of Israel in that wilderness and land was fundamentally due to their rebellion and defiance. Hence, the supposition that this is a single command appears unlikely. This supposition — that these are one and the same command — therefore does not seem correct, and it appears that these must be two separate commands. For verse 26 of Surat al-Ma’idah states: “He said: It is forbidden to them for forty years; they will wander confusedly through the land” («قَالَ فَإِنَّهَا مُحَرَّمَةٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَرْبَعِينَ سَنَةً يَتِيهُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ»), which clearly demonstrates that these are two separate commands; their respective punishments, too, differ. The punishment for one was wandering and bewilderment in that land; the punishment for the other was the chastisement (rijz), for the verse continues: “So We sent down upon those who did wrong a punishment from the sky on account of the transgression they used to commit” («فَأَنْزَلْنَا عَلَى الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا رِجْزًا مِنَ السَّمَاءِ بِمَا كَانُوا يَفْسُقُونَ»).

Hence, in light of verse 21 of Surat al-Ma’idah, we cannot say that this holy land is the same as Jerusalem — that is, we cannot make the town here correspond to Jerusalem on this basis. The aim had been to argue that, since the command to enter in that verse and the command to enter the town in our verse under discussion are one and the same, this therefore corresponds to Jerusalem; this argument has been subjected to this objection.

Second supposition: against this, one might say that we accept that these are two separate commands, while nevertheless maintaining that there exist indications by which we may establish that what is meant by “town” is Jerusalem.

1. One indication is that the command to enter is followed by the statement, “and eat freely therein wherever you wish” («فَكُلُوا مِنْهَا حَيْثُ شِئْتُمْ رَغَدًا»), which indicates that this land was a blessed land possessing abundant blessings. On the other hand, verse 1 of Surat al-Isra’ states, “We blessed the surroundings thereof” («بَارَكْنَا حَوْلَهُ»), which refers to the fact that this is a holy and blessed land, possessing abundant material and spiritual blessings. Hence, “We blessed the surroundings thereof” refers to this very Jerusalem; this then serves as an indication that what is meant is Jerusalem, since here too there is mention of abundant blessings, just as there was mention there of blessings and bounties.
2. Here the verse states, “and enter through the gate prostrating, and say, ‘Hittah‘” («وَادْخُلُوا الْبَابَ سُجَّدًا وَقُولُوا حِطَّةٌ»); the instruction to enter through this gate and request the forgiveness of sin indicates that the place they were to enter was a holy place, since this involves speech and conduct by means of which they were to seek nearness to God — seeking forgiveness for sin and drawing near to God. This is consistent with Jerusalem.

It must be said, however, that these two pieces of evidence are not particularly strong or conclusive. It is true that their being two separate commands does not in itself damage the case for their referring to Jerusalem. In the first command, it was said: “O my people, enter the holy land” («يَا قَوْمِ ادْخُلُوا الْأَرْضَ الْمُقَدَّسَةَ»); from that very point, the command to enter Jerusalem was given — the holy land being this very Jerusalem. However, since they “turned back” («ارْتَدُّوا عَلَى أَدْبَارِهِمْ»), and since they did this, they “became losers” («فَتَنْقَلِبُوا خَاسِرِينَ»); their loss, apart from spiritual ruin, consisted in their forty years of wandering in that wilderness. For the verse goes on to say, “It is forbidden to them for forty years” («فَإِنَّهَا مُحَرَّمَةٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَرْبَعِينَ سَنَةً»); from the outset, they had been commanded to enter Jerusalem, but on account of their rebellion and defiance, they endured forty years of wandering in that wilderness.

Hence, it is true that there are two separate commands, but the two commands have a single object commanded — namely, entry into a specific land; this command was simply issued on two separate occasions. On the first occasion, they fell into forty years of wandering on account of their sins and transgressions. On the second occasion, the command was given to enter that very same region and land, and there too they created a further difficulty. But the fact that there are two separate commands creates no difficulty for the claim that the place they were to enter was Jerusalem.

The conclusion is that the possibility that what is meant by “town” in this verse is this very Jerusalem is a possibility that cannot readily be dismissed, and there is, moreover, evidence for it from the verse. The verse “enter the holy land” therefore apparently refers to one and the same place.

Second Possibility: Jericho

The second possibility is that what is meant is Jericho. The late Muhaddith Kashani has adopted this very view. Fayd Kashani, citing the exegesis attributed to Imam al-‘Askari, peace be upon him, states that what is meant by “town” is Jericho. Jericho was one of the cities of Palestine, situated near Jerusalem.