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

Session Ten

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 – Second Possibility: Jericho – Third Possibility: The Region of Syria (al-Shamat) – The Preferred View

November 5, 2024

Summary of the Previous Session

We have noted that verse 58 comprises several parts; our discussion concerned the first part. Within the first part, three points have so far been set forth, though the third point has not yet been concluded. The subject of the third point was: what is meant by “town” (qaryah) in the verse “And [recall] when We said: Enter this town” («وَإِذْ قُلْنَا ادْخُلُوا هَذِهِ الْقَرْيَةَ»)? There are four possibilities regarding “town”; we noted, however, that one possibility has no proponent, and exegetes, including al-Razi, have made no reference to anyone holding it. The other three possibilities, however, do have proponents. The first possibility was that what is meant is Jerusalem; there are indications supporting this possibility, and we have set forth these indications. We may accept this as a possibility, but there is no decisive evidence that would render this possibility certain.

Continuation of Point Three

Second Possibility: Jericho

The second possibility is that what is meant by “town” is Jericho; those who have adopted this possibility, including Ibn ‘Abbas and Abu Zayd, have appealed to certain reasons in its support. Jericho is a place near Jerusalem which apparently still bears this same name today; whether this is the very same Jericho, or another place that has come to bear this name, is not clear; but we do presently have a small city named Jericho located in that same region.

Reasoning: the reasoning put forward in support of this possibility is that, following the command to enter this town and the subsequent instructions, God Almighty states in verse 59: “But those who did wrong substituted…” («فَبَدَّلَ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا»), which implies a sequence of events; that is, the substitution of God’s command — that upon entering through this gate they should do so in a state of humility and reverence, “and say, ‘Hittah‘” («و قولوا حطة») — occurred during the lifetime of the Prophet Moses, peace be upon him; that is, the Prophet Moses was alive and conveyed these instructions, and they then substituted them. Hence, this substitution must have occurred during the lifetime of the Prophet Moses. Yet the Prophet Moses never entered Jerusalem; he passed away before entering Jerusalem. Hence, what is meant by “town” cannot be Jerusalem. On this basis, the proponents of this view have rejected the possibility that it is Jerusalem; this is, in effect, an objection to the first possibility, as was noted in the previous session.

The response of the proponents of the first possibility: the proponents of the first possibility have a defense against this argument as well; they say: the command to enter and to make use of the blessings of this town, together with the two subsequent commands, was not necessarily conveyed through the speech of the Prophet Moses, peace be upon him; God, here, does not say that We commanded Moses to convey this to the people, nor that We commanded Joshua to convey this to the people. The verse is silent on the question of through whose speech this command was issued to the Children of Israel. For it is possible that, after the passing of the Prophet Moses, God commanded Joshua, who was the successor of the Prophet Moses, to tell the people to enter this town and make use of its blessings, followed by the other instructions referred to in this verse. If we interpret the verse in this manner, there is no obstacle to saying that what is meant by “town” in this verse was Jerusalem. In any case, this is the response that the proponents of the first possibility have given to those who hold to the second possibility. Al-Razi, in al-Tafsir al-Kabir, refers to this argument and this response.

Thus, one possibility is that what is meant by “town” is Jericho; as was noted previously, Fayd Kashani too, citing a narration from the exegesis attributed to Imam al-‘Askari, peace be upon him, has applied “town” to Jericho. Here too, however, the matter does not go beyond the level of possibility; that is, even with regard to Jericho, we might say that this is merely a possibility.

Third Possibility: The Region of Syria (al-Shamat)

Since we have set aside one possibility — namely, Egypt — on the grounds that it has no proponent, three principal possibilities remain: one, Jerusalem; the second, Jericho; and the third, that what is meant is the entire land comprising the region of Syria (al-Shamat). The region of Syria has, from of old, been the cradle of the divine prophets and the region where the great religions emerged. Here, where God says “Enter this town” («ادْخُلُوا هَذِهِ الْقَرْيَةَ»), He intends, on this view, to say: enter that land. As I have noted, this possibility too has its proponents.

Reasoning: their reasoning is that, when the command was given to enter that region, they said that they would not enter, and refrained from entering that region. Their excuse was that a people called the Amalekites were in that region, and they lacked the courage to fight them, and were, in fact, afraid of confronting and facing them; hence they refrained from going there. This holy land is, in fact, a vast region of which this town constitutes only a part; the excuses given here for disobedience differ from the excuses they had previously offered. Here, they do not now offer the excuse that they will not enter and will not fight; that excuse had been given previously, in that verse which I read in the previous session, namely “Enter the holy land” («ادْخُلُوا الْأَرْضَ الْمُقَدَّسَةَ») — these excuses differ from the excuse they had previously given for not entering the holy land. There, their excuse was fear of the Amalekites; their excuse here is a matter of a different nature. Hence, when God says, do this — “say, ‘Hittah‘” («قولوا حطة») — for instance, instead of obeying that divine command, they put forward a different statement.

Examination of the third possibility: in any case, the possibility that what is meant by “town” is that vast and extensive land of Syria, comprising Syria, Palestine, and certain other regions, can hardly be accepted. For a vast land of this kind would not be referred to as “this town” («هذه القرية»). “This town” points to a specific place. The application of the term “town” to a vast region is unconventional. Hence, the possibility that what is meant by “this town” is the region of Syria is a weak possibility.

The Preferred View

Thus, of these four possibilities taken together, two are weak and may be set aside: one, that what is meant is Egypt, and the other, that it encompasses the entirety of Syria. These two possibilities do not appear particularly acceptable. Two possibilities remain: one, Jerusalem, and the other, Jericho. Each of these has evidence and indications supporting it; but to prefer one of these two possibilities over the other is indeed difficult. This requires historical evidence, and we do not possess such evidence in any firmly established form. The late Fayd, citing a narration, has applied it to Jericho; were we obliged to select one possibility from between these two, perhaps the possibility that we take this town to be Jericho is somewhat stronger than that of Jerusalem — though both possibilities do have supporting evidence. The principal consideration is that these instructions were apparently conveyed through the speech of the Prophet Moses, peace be upon him. This, however, also presents a difficulty; for if it is to be attributed to the speech of the Prophet Moses, we would have to say that Moses uttered this — yet the Prophet Moses passed away before entering Jerusalem. Joshua then conquered that region, and after that, the Children of Israel entered this region by way of Jericho. This is a possibility which, according to some, certain passages of the Torah may also support.

A further piece of evidence supporting the second possibility is that Jerusalem did not exist during the time of the Prophet Moses, peace be upon him; some exegetes, citing historical reports, state that Jerusalem was built by the Prophet Solomon, peace be upon him, who was among the descendants of the Prophet Moses; Jerusalem simply did not exist in the time of the Prophet Moses and was constructed only later. The promises that God made concerning this land were, in fact, not directed at the Prophet Moses himself and the Children of Israel present in that era, but rather at later generations of the Children of Israel and their descendants — a matter which the Prophet Moses related to them with reference to the future. Hence, perhaps, in light of this collection of points, we may say that “this town” in this verse is this very Jericho, and not Jerusalem.

Topic of the Next Session

We shall set forth the second part, namely “and eat freely therein wherever you wish” («فَكُلُوا مِنْهَا حَيْثُ شِئْتُمْ رَغَدًا»), in the coming session.