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

Session Twenty-Three

The Two Parts of Verse 59 – Part Two: “So We Sent Down Upon Those Who Did Wrong…” – Point One – Point Two – Point Three – Three Possibilities Regarding “On Account of the Transgression They Used to Commit”

January 25, 2025

Continuation of Point One

We have noted that the second part of the verse contains several points; the second part was: “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»). The first point concerned “anzalna” (We sent down); we asked why the expression “anzalna” was used. We sometimes observe the descent of chastisement mentioned without the word “inzal” (sending down); at times the word “irsal” (sending) is used; at times neither “inzal” nor “irsal” is mentioned at all. Here, “rijz” means chastisement; some lexicographers have stated that “rijz” is agitation that gives rise to chastisement; we shall explain this further presently. Hence, there is no doubt that what is meant is the punishment and chastisement of the Children of Israel. But why has the expression “inzal” (sending down) been used? It is interesting that God, Most High, uses the expression “arsalna” (We sent) in Surat al-A’raf; what is the difference between these two? Just as we have noted the differences between verse 58 of Surat al-Baqarah and its counterpart in Surat al-A’raf, we shall likewise note these differences with regard to verse 59 and its counterpart in Surat al-A’raf. One of these differences is precisely this expression, “anzalna” versus “arsalna.” It has been said here that “inzal” (sending down) conveys the occurrence of rijz at the very outset of the matter, whereas “irsal” (sending) conveys the complete overwhelming and mastery of the chastisement and rijz over them, which occurs in the hereafter. This is what al-Razi has stated. The difference between these two is that “irsal” conveys encompassment, comprehensiveness, and the pervasive spread of the chastisement; “arsalna ‘alayhim” is, as it were, intending to convey that they did something such that this chastisement encompassed all of them — that is, it became fully dominant over them, and they were utterly overwhelmed. This state, perhaps, occurs in the hereafter. “Inzal,” however, in fact, attends to the initial stage of the occurrence of chastisement; the beginning of an affliction differs from the point at which it becomes all-encompassing.

Hence, “anzalna” means, in fact, that after these events and these deeds which the Children of Israel had committed, We sent down a chastisement upon them there — that is, We began to bring chastisement upon them.

Point Two

“Rijz” has been defined as follows: “agitation that gives rise to chastisement” (al-idtirab al-mujib lil-‘adhab) — that is, a state of agitation within them that brings about chastisement for them. Now, this agitation is itself, in fact, a chastisement; that is, truly the worst of chastisements for a human being is agitation, depression, and spiritual turmoil. If a person enjoys the very best of blessings, yet lacks spiritual peace, it is as though he is living in hell; but, conversely, someone who is deprived of many resources, yet possesses spiritual tranquility and peace, feels, as it were, that he is in paradise. Hence, were the outward veils of life to be lifted, and were outward appearances not to be the criterion for judging the happiness and misery of human beings, how many people there are who enjoy excellent material resources, yet have not a moment’s peace; and how many people there are who live with the bare minimum of resources, yet truly feel a sense of felicity and happiness. Hence, if we take “rijz” to mean agitation, this is naturally either itself a chastisement, or it gives rise to chastisement; both usages are valid — we may say that “rijz” gives rise to chastisement, in the sense that it is an agitation within a person that brings about the worst of chastisements in its wake.

Regarding the meaning of “rijz,” certain narrations have been transmitted from the noble Messenger of Islam, peace be upon him, stating that this “rijz” refers to the disease of plague; this narration appears in Majma’ al-Bayan: “The Prophet, peace be upon him, said concerning the plague that it is a chastisement (rijz) with which certain nations before you were punished” («قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلی الله علیه وآله فِي الطَّاعُونِ أَنَّهُ رِجْزٌ عُذِّبَ بِهِ بَعْضُ الْأُمَمِ قَبْلَكُمْ») — the plague was a chastisement with which certain nations before you were punished. On this basis, we may say that perhaps the Children of Israel are precisely those “certain nations” to which the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, refers in this narration. Indeed, in the Sunni collections of narrations too, this meaning is, in certain instances, mentioned — namely, that “rijz” means plague.

Following from this discussion, it has been stated that a number of the Children of Israel perished as a result of this disease; a figure has also been given — for instance, some have mentioned a figure as high as seventy thousand; some have mentioned smaller figures. In any case, one possibility regarding “rijz” is precisely this, as referred to in this narration — though the authenticity of these narrations, in terms of their chain of transmission, may not be particularly strong or reliable.

In any case, “rijz,” given the indefinite form (tanwin) attached to it, was a terrible and tremendous chastisement. Now, whether we understand this as agitation, or as plague, or indeed as something other than these two, what matters is that, on account of the deeds they had committed, God subjected them to chastisement in this manner.

Question:

Professor: That is, if, for instance, a disease such as plague becomes widespread, contagious, and rapidly causes the destruction of a population, it is evident that this would also give rise to agitation; that is, the two are not readily separable from one another.

Point Three

The third point relates to the concluding portion of the second part — namely, “on account of the transgression they used to commit” («بما کانوا یفسقون»). The verse does not say “on account of the transgression they commit” (bima yafsuqun), but rather, “on account of the transgression they used to commit” (bima kanu yafsuqun). When “kana” precedes a present-tense verb (fi’l mudari’), it conveys continuity; “kana yadribu” means “he used to strike,” conveying the continuity of an act in past time. Hence, “on account of the transgression they used to commit” indicates the continuity of their transgression; they engaged in transgression continually, not that they committed a single act of transgression and that was the end of it; they were continually engaged in transgression.

The question that arises is: what relationship does “on account of the transgression they used to commit” bear to “those who did wrong”? For here the discussion concerns the descent of chastisement; we have noted that the descent of chastisement, too, was on account of wrongdoing. We noted that one possibility regarding “those who did wrong” is that it points to the cause of the descent of the chastisement — that the reason We sent down the chastisement is that they committed wrongdoing. The verse intends to convey that wrongdoing, from whatever quarter it occurs — even from the Children of Israel — brings about chastisement; it is not the case that only the wrongdoing of the house of Pharaoh brings about chastisement. Wrongdoing is so reprehensible that whoever commits it, even if from among the Children of Israel, brings about chastisement upon themselves. In any case, several possibilities exist here:

“On account of the transgression they used to commit” points to the fact that the cause of the descent of the rijz from the sky was the continuity of their wrongdoing and transgression. “On account of the transgression they used to commit” intends to convey the continuity of their transgression and wrongdoing — that is, they did not desist from disobedience and did not repent, and were continually engaged in transgression; this is what caused this chastisement to descend. The verse intends to say that We do not send down chastisement merely on account of a single sin or a single act of transgression; the chastisement descended for this reason — that they continually engaged in transgression without repenting. In other words, the descent of rijz upon this people was not merely on account of their disregarding the command to enter the town humbly, nor merely on account of their substituting “hittah” with another word — these are not the cause; rather, it was on account of the continuation and persistence of their transgression and disobedience, and if We are now chastising them, it is on account of their wrongdoing and transgression, and not merely on account of their opposition to these two commands, “Enter this town” and “Say, ‘Hittah.'”
Another possibility is that “on account of the transgression they used to commit” intends to convey that their wrongdoing was, in fact, severe; that is, the mention of “on account of the transgression they used to commit” following “those who did wrong” conveys their excess and extremity in wrongdoing and the severity of their wrongdoing — that is, their wrongdoing had reached a point not merely of an ordinary act of disobedience, but had reached the point of departure from servitude to God altogether. That is, the verse intends to convey that the high degree of their wrongdoing brought about the descent of chastisement.
A further possibility is that “on account of the transgression they used to commit” is simply another expression for “those who did wrong” — that is, it is merely an alternative phrasing, and there is no difference in meaning between the two; it conveys no new meaning. Evidence for this is found in the fact that, in Surat al-A’raf, in place of “yafsuqun,” it states: “So We sent down upon them a punishment from the sky on account of the wrong they used to commit” («فَأَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ رِجْزًا مِنَ السَّمَاءِ بِمَا كَانُوا يَظْلِمُونَ»).

These, then, are the three possibilities that may be cited regarding “on account of the transgression they used to commit.” As to which of these meanings carries the greater weight, given what appears in Surat al-A’raf, it could point either to the continuity of their wrongdoing or to its severity; but in light of the similarity between the verse in Surat al-A’raf and this verse, it is not unlikely that we should say that this is simply another expression for “yazlimun” (they were wronging).