Session Thirty-Two, Verse 60, The Five Parts of the Verse, Part Three

Session Thirty-Two

Verse 60 – The Five Parts of the Verse – Part Three: “And There Gushed Forth from It Twelve Springs” – Points Four and Five – Part Four: “Eat and Drink from the Provision of God” – Point One

April 21, 2025

Point Four

Two points remain from the third part of verse 60; we set forth three points in the previous session. The fourth point is this: why does this part state that twelve springs arose from this stone — “and there gushed forth from it twelve springs” («فَانْفَجَرَتْ مِنْهُ اثْنَتَا عَشْرَةَ عَيْنًا»)? What is the reason for this? It is clear and evident that the members of the people of Moses were numerous, and all of them were in need of water; it was natural that, the moment they gained access to water, they would all rush toward it at once, and this could become the source of strife and conflict among them. Such conflicts and disputes usually begin from a point that is not particularly significant, yet lead to killing, bloody conflict, and great upheavals. Hence, God, Blessed and Exalted, in order to prevent such an upheaval and to perfect this blessing, designated for each group among them a specific and particular water source; these waters did not mix with one another, and each was situated along a path accessible to the people of Moses. Since they comprised twelve clans and groups (asbat), this blessing was, accordingly, divided into twelve springs, corresponding to the various clans and groups among the Children of Israel.

Question:

Professor: There is no dispute regarding the fact that the population was large; but as for the claim that it numbered six hundred thousand, no firm evidence can be cited for this. We proceed on the assumption that it was a large population; this large population, however, comprised various groups and clans. Consider an army that is divided into several brigades, battalions, companies, and platoons; a similar division and categorization existed there as well. That is, there were twelve clans, and for each clan, a single spring was designated. When people belong to a single tribe, such conflicts generally do not arise among the members of that one tribe.

Question:

Professor: That is, they were twelve clans; this matter is explicitly stated in Surat al-A’raf…

Point Five

Continuing within the third part, the verse states: “each group of people knowing its own drinking place” («قَدْ عَلِمَ كُلُّ أُنَاسٍ مَشْرَبَهُمْ») — each group and clan knew its own drinking place. Two points may be made regarding this passage of the verse.

First point: the verse states “each group of people knew” («قَدْ عَلِمَ كُلُّ أُنَاسٍ») — how did they come to know this? Apparently, this was something they had been commanded; that is, each group and clan had been commanded that they should drink only from a specific spring, and otherwise, in terms of natural occurrence, there would have been no way for each of them to be guided toward a particular drinking place; this was a directive — that, for instance, this clan should be assigned to this drinking place, and that other clan to that drinking place; this was determined on the basis of a command.

Second point: the fact that “mashrabahum” (“their drinking place”) is expressed in a possessive construction (idafah), stating “their drinking place,” is on account of the fact that God, Blessed and Exalted, had designated, for each of these twelve clans, a particular spring. Naturally, the designation of that spring or drinking place to each group provides the basis for attributing that drinking place to that group through the possessive construction. This is not contingent upon there being a relationship of ownership — that is, it is not necessary that they actually possess ownership of it for us to say “their drinking place”; rather, the very designation itself, and the directive that each clan possesses a particular drinking place, provides the basis for this drinking place to be attributed to them, such that it may be said “their drinking place.”

Question:

Professor: As has been noted, the principal purpose was to prevent strife and conflict; naturally, those who violated this directive (and this is not at all far-fetched) would be reckoned as defiant and disobedient; every directive, in a certain sense, is regarded as a test and a trial. The extent to which the one commanded adheres to and acts in accordance with this directive itself provides a basis for testing; and, of course, reward and punishment likewise follow in accordance with obedience to, or disobedience of, the command. This is not inconsistent with the fact that these laws and regulations were intended to establish order and prevent chaos and conflict.

Part Four: “Eat and Drink from the Provision of God”

The implied form of this part is, as it were: “faqulna lahum kulu wa-ashrabu min rizqillah” (“so We said to them: eat and drink from the provision of God”), or “qala lahum kulu wa-ashrabu min rizqillah” (“he said to them: eat and drink from the provision of God”). It is possible that this command was conveyed directly from God to them, in which case the verse would say “faqulna lahum” (“so We said to them”); or it may be that this means “qala lahum” (“he said to them”), that is, that Moses said this to them. In any case, a clause has here been omitted and is not mentioned explicitly.

We must here set forth several points regarding this part of the verse.

Point One

The first point is this: how is it that the narrative has, up to this point, been in the past tense, yet now appears in the imperative form? At the opening of the verse, it stated: “And [recall] when Moses prayed for water for his people, so We said: Strike the stone with your staff; and there gushed forth from it twelve springs, each group of people knowing its own drinking place” («وَإِذِ اسْتَسْقَى مُوسَى لِقَوْمِهِ فَقُلْنَا اضْرِبْ بِعَصَاكَ الْحَجَرَ فَانْفَجَرَتْ مِنْهُ اثْنَتَا عَشْرَةَ عَيْنًا قَدْ عَلِمَ كُلُّ أُنَاسٍ مَشْرَبَهُمْ») — up to this point, the verbs are in the past tense, narrating that the Children of Israel were addressed in this manner, that this command was given, and that these events occurred; but now, without the word “We said” (qulna) or “he said” (qala), the verse suddenly states: “Eat and drink from the provision of God” («كُلُوا وَاشْرَبُوا مِنْ رِزْقِ اللَّهِ») — it shifts from the past tense and narration into the imperative and command. This shift (iltifat) from the past tense to the imperative carries a particular point — namely, that the verse, as it were, intends to address the Jews of the Prophet’s, peace be upon him, time, and to direct their attention to this very point: that you too should “eat and drink from the provision of God.” It is, as it were, striking two targets with one arrow: it refers both to what occurred in the past, and, at the same time, to the Jews of the era of the Qur’an’s revelation; although, of course, every verse of the Qur’an is addressed to all people until the Day of Resurrection, and all human beings are its addressees — yet here, given that the verse was revealed in this manner during the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him, it in fact seeks to address the Jews of the Prophet’s time, and, as it were, to bring to life, in the minds of the people and the Jews of that era of revelation, the presence of the Children of Israel and God’s address to them. It creates a vivid, living scene before the Jews of that era of revelation — and this, in addition to its conciseness, also displays a certain delicacy and wisdom; rather than saying “We said this to them, and We now say the same to you as well,” the verse has, as it were, condensed this and simply stated: “each group of people knowing its own drinking place. Eat and drink from the provision of God” («قَدْ عَلِمَ كُلُّ أُنَاسٍ مَشْرَبَهُمْ كُلُوا وَاشْرَبُوا مِنْ رِزْقِ اللَّهِ»).

Topic of the Next Session

The second point is this: why does the verse say “eat and drink from the provision of God” — why, following the discussion of the prayer for water and the reference to drinking and being given water to drink, does it issue a command to eat? It then goes on to say “the provision of God” («رزق الله»); some have taken “the provision of God” to be confined specifically to water, and have, consequently, had to interpret “eat” («کلوا») in a manner consistent with this construction. Others have taken “the provision of God” to be of a more general scope, and have taken “eat” to relate to the manna and quails already mentioned previously. God willing, in the coming session, we shall set forth a detailed account of these two views and perspectives.