Session Twenty-Seven, Verse 60, Individual Terms of the Verse

Session Twenty-Seven

Verse 60 – Individual Terms of the Verse – 2. “Fa-infajarat” – 3. “Wa la ta’thaw” – Two Views on the Meaning of “‘Athiya” – The Five Parts of the Verse

February 21, 2025

Individual Terms of the Verse

Our discussion concerned the individual terms of verse 60 of Surat al-Baqarah; the first term on which we offered a brief explanation was “hajar” (stone).

2. “Fa-infajarat”

“Fa-infajarat” was, in fact, originally “fadarabat fa-infajarat,” with the “fa” in “fa-infajarat” relating to an omitted verb, “daraba” (he struck); or it may have been structured as “fa-in darabta fa-qad infajarat” (“if you strike, then it has burst forth”). In any case, this was the original form of “fa-infajarat.” The meaning of “infijar” (bursting forth) is, lexically, clear. In verse 160 of Surat al-A’raf, instead of “infajarat,” the word “inbajasat” is used. We shall, in keeping with our discussion of the preceding two verses (where we noted certain differences between this verse in Surat al-Baqarah and its counterpart in Surat al-A’raf), likewise note, in connection with this verse, what difference exists between the meaning of “infajarat” and “inbajasat.” In any case, “infajarat” means the forceful flow of water from the point struck by the staff — that is, that, with the strike of the staff upon that stone, a forceful flow of water arose, either suddenly or gradually. This is evident from the very word “infijar,” meaning a forceful flow; the object of this “infijar” may relate to various matters; “infijar al-ma’” means a forceful flowing forth of water. “Fadaraba fa-infajarat” means that, with the strike of the staff, a forceful flow of water arose all at once; against this, some exegetes have said that the water at first flowed slowly and weakly, but later turned into a forceful burst.

3. “La Ta’thaw”

The verse reads: “and do not commit corruption upon the earth, spreading mischief” («وَلَا تَعْثَوْا فِي الْأَرْضِ مُفْسِدِينَ»). What does “ta’thaw” mean here, and what is its root? “La ta’thaw” is derived from the root “‘athiya.” Alongside “‘athiy,” another word is mentioned, namely “‘ayth” — that is, we have two words: “‘athiya” and “‘atha.” The final radical (lam al-fi’l) of “‘athiya” is the letter ya, while the middle radical (‘ayn al-fi’l) of “‘atha” is the letter ya. It has been said that these two carry the same meaning, except that “‘ayth” is used predominantly with respect to tangible, sensory matters, whereas “‘athiya” or “‘athiy” is used absolutely. In any case, “la ta’thaw” is derived from “‘athiya” or “‘athiy.”

Regarding the meaning of “‘athiya” or “‘athiy,” two possibilities — indeed, two distinct views — exist:

First View

Some exegetes have taken it to mean transgression and exceeding a limit in an absolute sense; the reason we say “absolute transgression of a limit” is that the transgression of a limit is, at times, realized in the form of corruption, and, at other times, in the form of benefit. That is, at times a limit may be transgressed, but for the sake of benefit, not corruption — as in the episode of the Prophet Khidr, peace be upon him, concerning the killing of the youth and the inflicting of damage and defect upon the boat; this act, though a departure from the ordinary limit, was nevertheless accompanied by a wisdom and benefit. At other times, however, the transgression of a limit may indeed be accompanied by corruption.

If we say that “‘athiy” means absolute transgression of a limit, then “mufsidin” (“spreading mischief”), in relation to “la ta’thaw,” is not a mere repetition or emphasis. For some have raised an objection here: if we take “la ta’thaw” to mean “corruption-inducing transgression,” what point, then, is there in mentioning “mufsidin“? It would be as though the verse were saying: do not commit corruption, while [already implying] you are committing corruption — that is, do not engage in corruption-inducing transgression, while you are [already] committing corruption. Some have said that “mufsidin” functions as an emphasis (ta’kid) or as a circumstantial clause (hal) for “la ta’thaw“; but some have objected that an emphasis or circumstantial clause cannot occur following a verbal sentence (jumlah fi’liyyah). This is the objection that arises here.

Hence, in order to avoid this objection, it has been said that “‘athiy” means absolute transgression of a limit, and “mufsidin” serves as a qualifying restriction (qayd ihtirazi) excluding transgression of a limit accompanied by benefit; that is, the verse is, as it were, saying: do not overstep your bounds in a manner in which your transgression of the limit is accompanied by corruption. According to this possibility, “and do not commit corruption upon the earth, spreading mischief” means: do not transgress the limit in a manner in which this transgression of yours is corrupt and accompanied by corruption. This becomes similar to expressions such as “la tas’aw fi al-ardi fasadan” (“do not strive for corruption upon the earth”), or “la tatghaw fi al-ardi mufsidin” (“do not transgress upon the earth, spreading mischief”), or “la ta’tadu fi al-ardi mufsidin” (“do not transgress upon the earth, spreading mischief”) — these acquire a specific meaning following the absolute sense of “la tas’aw,” “la tatghaw,” and “la ta’tadu.”

This, then, is one possibility, or one meaning, that has been put forward in certain exegetical works.

Second View

The other view is that “‘athiy” means the intensity of corruption; some exegetes state that the verse forbids the intensification of corruption, and that, in this case, the word “mufsidin,” coming after “la ta’thaw,” is, in fact, reckoned as an emphasis (ta’kid) of “la ta’thaw,” functioning as an emphatic circumstantial clause (hal mu’akkadah).

If we adopt this possibility, the objection raised with regard to the first possibility remains in force as well — namely, why an emphatic circumstantial clause should here follow a verbal sentence, given that an emphatic circumstantial clause cannot follow a verbal sentence.

In any case, these two views have been put forward regarding “ta’thaw.” It is not unlikely, in light of this objection, that we should give preference to the first view, since we find parallel instances of this in certain other expressions as well.

The Five Parts of the Verse

There remain no further terms requiring explanation; we must now proceed to the exegesis of this verse. Verse 60 comprises several parts, and each part likewise contains several points.

Part One: “And [recall] when Moses prayed for water for his people” («وَإِذِ اسْتَسْقَى مُوسَى لِقَوْمِهِ»).

Part Two: “So We said: Strike the stone with your staff” («فَقُلْنَا اضْرِبْ بِعَصَاكَ الْحَجَرَ»).

Part Three: “And there gushed forth from it twelve springs, each group of people knowing its own drinking place” («فَانْفَجَرَتْ مِنْهُ اثْنَتَا عَشْرَةَ عَيْنًا قَدْ عَلِمَ كُلُّ أُنَاسٍ مَشْرَبَهُمْ»).

Part Four: “Eat and drink from the provision of God” («كُلُوا وَاشْرَبُوا مِنْ رِزْقِ اللَّهِ»).

Part Five: “And do not commit corruption upon the earth, spreading mischief” («وَلَا تَعْثَوْا فِي الْأَرْضِ مُفْسِدِينَ»).

The reason we divide the verse into several parts is so that, by focusing on each part individually, while connecting it to the parts before and after it, we may set forth the necessary points and offer an exegesis of the verse. In any case, each of these five parts contains points which, God willing, we shall pursue in the coming session.