Session Twenty-Two, The Two Parts of Verse 59, Part One, Point Two, Point Three

Session Twenty-Two

The Two Parts of Verse 59 – Part One – Point Two – Point Three – Part Two: “So We Sent Down Upon Those Who Did Wrong…” – Point One

January 24, 2025

Summary of the Previous Session

On account of a power outage during the hours in which this exegesis session was being held, a relatively long gap occurred between sessions; today, in view of this gap, and given that the power outage might also continue, we have decided to proceed with these sessions, even though the lighting conditions are not entirely suitable.

Regarding verse 59, we noted that several points may be raised. The first point concerned “baddala” — namely, the question of in what matter this substitution essentially occurred — and certain related points were set forth.

Point Two

The second point concerns “those who did wrong” (al-ladhina zalamu); the verse of the Qur’an reads: “But those who did wrong substituted a saying other than that which had been said to them” («فَبَدَّلَ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا قَوْلًا غَيْرَ الَّذِي قِيلَ لَهُمْ»). This second point, of course, belongs to the first part of verse 59; for we have noted that verse 59 comprises two parts, and we are presently discussing the first part. Regarding “those who did wrong,” two possibilities exist:

First possibility: this is intended to exclude the non-wrongdoers from the descent of the chastisement, punishment, and rijz; for the second part states: “So We sent down upon those who did wrong” («فَأَنْزَلْنَا عَلَى الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا»). Here, the verse intends to convey that those who did wrong substituted the statement with something other than what had been said to them. The discussion of the descent of the chastisement, which follows, likewise concerns this same group. It is as though the verse intends to exclude a group who neither substituted God’s statement nor had the chastisement and rijz sent down upon them.

Second possibility: “those who did wrong” indicates the causal role of wrongdoing in bringing about the descent of divine chastisement from the sky; that is, their deed was wrongdoing, and because they committed wrongdoing, rijz was sent down upon them from the sky. This means that wrongdoing, from whatever quarter it occurs — whether from the Children of Israel or from the house of Pharaoh — entails punishment and is subject to divine retribution. Wrongdoing, then, is absolutely reprehensible, regardless of from whom it occurs, and it entails punishment and chastisement.

Point Three

The third point, to which some exegetes have drawn attention, concerns “a saying other than that which had been said to them” («قَوْلًا غَيْرَ الَّذِي قِيلَ لَهُمْ»). Here, God, Blessed and Exalted, could instead have said: “fabaddala al-ladhina zalamu al-qawla bighayrihi” — those who did wrong substituted the statement with another — which would have been more fluent, but would not have conveyed a serious distinction and a complete contrast between the thing substituted and the thing substituted for. The intent, however, was to express the distinction between the statement they had been commanded to utter and the statement they actually uttered; hence the verse states “other than that which had been said to them,” which is, as it were, a serious emphasis on the distinction between what was commanded and what was actually delivered; that is, the verse intends to convey that there existed a complete distinction and contrast between what God had commanded them and what they actually carried out. This is a point that has been noted in Tafsir al-Manar and certain other exegetical works, namely that this conveys, for instance, the height of this distinction.

The fact of the matter, however, is that this aspect cannot readily be derived from this statement. Whether the verse says “fabaddala al-ladhina zalamu qawlan ghayra al-ladhi qila lahum” or “fabaddala al-ladhina zalamu al-qawla bighayrihi” — it is true that “the statement that had been said to them” likewise points to the divine command, namely that a statement had been told to them but they uttered something other than it; had the verse instead said “fabaddala al-ladhina zalamu al-qawla bighayrihi,” this aspect of command and instruction would not have been reflected to the same degree in this sentence — though, of course, reference to that statement had already been made earlier. In any case, it is not entirely clear that this manner of expression conveys an emphasis on distinction, while the alternative phrasing “al-qawla bighayrihi” would not convey a comparable emphasis on distinction.

This, then, concerned the first part of verse 59.

Part Two: “So We Sent Down Upon Those Who Did Wrong a Punishment from the Sky on Account of the Transgression They Used to Commit”

In this part, we must set forth several points.

Point One

The first point concerns “anzalna” (We sent down), and the discussion of the descent of chastisement; the verse states that We sent down rijz from the sky. The meaning of “anzalna” is clear; but could another word or term have been used here instead? In similar instances, where chastisement and punishment are directed against a people, what expression is employed? The expressions used for the descent of chastisement and punishment (whether from the sky or from the earth) are generally of this same kind: “the descent of chastisement,” “We sent down chastisement”; we do not see the discussion of the “descent” of chastisement in many other expressions; rather, the verse says “yu’adhdhibuhum” (He chastises them), “nu’adhdhibuhum” (We chastise them), “‘adhdhabahum” (He chastised them) — that God chastised them, or chastises them, or will chastise them in the future; at times this expression is used as a promise of chastisement, or it is said “‘adhdhabnahum” — We chastised them. In many instances, the verb “‘adhdhaba” and “yu’adhdhibu” and similar forms are employed. But at times, the discussion concerns the “descent” of chastisement; what difference exists between these two? The “descent” of chastisement, or the direct expression of chastisement itself — is there a difference between these, or not? Some have noted a difference, which, God willing, we shall address in the coming session.