Verses 112–128
These verses continue from the previous section dealing with legal rulings. They mention the prohibitions and permissions regarding food, and it warns against arbitrarily declaring things lawful or unlawful without God’s permission. It also mentions some laws that were instituted for the Israelites but later abrogated. This connects to the earlier discussion on abrogation in the verse: When We change a sign with another in its place (). It highlights that what was revealed to the Prophet was indeed the religion of Abraham, which was founded on balance and monotheism, and devoid of the hardships God imposed on the Israelites due to their transgressions.
The final part of these verses enjoins justice in meting out punishment, encourages patience and seeking reward through enduring trials, and delivers a beautiful promise of help and sufficiency if they fear God and do good deeds.
Commentary
وَضَرَبَ اللَّهُ مَثَلاً قَرْيَةً كَانَتْ آمِنَةً مُّطْمَئِنَّةً يَأْتِيهَا رِزْقُهَا رَغَدًا مِّن كُلِّ مَكَانٍ فَكَفَرَتْ بِأَنْعُمِ اللَّهِ فَأَذَاقَهَا اللَّهُ لِبَاسَ الْجُوعِ وَالْخَوْفِ بِمَا كَانُواْ يَصْنَعُونَ ١١٢
(16:112) Allah draws a parable: A town secure and peaceful. Its provision came abundantly from every place (raghadan). But it was ungrateful toward Allah’s blessings. So Allah made it taste hunger and fear because of what they used to do.
The term raghad in living refers to a comfortable, plentiful life.
This is a parable set forth by God, describing a city that received all it needed for a comfortable life. God completed these blessings by sending them a prophet who called them to what was beneficial for them in both their worldly and next-worldly affairs. However, they were ungrateful for His blessings and denied His messenger. Consequently, God replaced His blessings with punishment and afflicted them for their wrongdoing in denying His messenger. This example serves as a warning against ingratitude for God’s blessings and disbelief in His signs after they have been revealed.
This parable also sets the stage for the subsequent discussion on what is permissible and impermissible to eat and the prohibition of inventing laws about what is lawful and unlawful without God’s permission. This is inferred from the context of the verses, as each one leads to the next.
Some say the city referred to here is Mecca, which God punished with famine for seven years due to their ingratitude for His blessings and denial of His messenger. They faced scarcity and their caravans were raided as a result of the Prophet’s curse on them. This is mentioned by al-Ṭabrisī in Majmaʿ al-Bayān and attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās, Mujāhid, and Qatāda.
Although this example can fit the description mentioned, the context of the verses suggests it is a general parable introduced as a prelude to the mentioned issues.
Allah draws a parable: A town secure and peaceful. Its provision came abundantly from every place—the city is described with three sequential attributes—security, peace, and abundance of provision -with the middle one, peace, acting as a link between the two ends. A city that is safe from dangers, like attacks and natural disasters, becomes tranquil and settled. Its inhabitants do not need to disperse or flee.
Moreover, the ultimate tranquillity is achieved when its provisions come abundantly from everywhere, meaning its people do not need to undergo hardships to obtain sustenance. These three attributes—security, peace, and abundant provision—complete the material and apparent blessings for the city. To these, the subsequent verse adds spiritual blessings, There had certainly come to them a messenger from among themselves. Thus, it was a city blessed with both material and spiritual favors from God.
But it was ungrateful toward Allah’s blessings. So Allah made it taste hunger and fear (fa-adhāqa-hā Allāh libās al-jawʿ wa al-khawf) because of what they used to do—the phrase, Allah’s blessings, is a collective term indicating the three types: security, peace, and the provision of sustenance. The metaphor of “tasting” signifies the transmission of a small measure of something, so making them taste hunger and fear suggests that the One who inflicted these conditions has the power to intensify and multiply them to an immeasurable extent. How could He not, when He is God, the all-powerful?
Furthermore, the association of libās (lit. “garb”) with hunger and fear implies encompassment and envelopment, just as clothing covers and surrounds the body. This minimal amount of hunger and fear they tasted engulfed them as clothing would, and God, in His absolute power and dominion, is capable of inflicting even more severe punishments, reflecting their utter humiliation and degradation.
The verse ends with because of what they used to do, emphasizing that the divine principle of recompense for gratitude and ingratitude is firmly established.
Therefore, the meaning of the verse is: “God sets forth the example of a city whose people lived in safety, free from threats to their lives, honor, and wealth, and in tranquillity, without the need to migrate. They received plentiful and wholesome sustenance from every place without needing to undergo the hardships of travel. However, they were ungrateful for these divine blessings and failed to thank God, leading Him to bestow a small portion of His punishment upon them—hunger and fear, which enveloped them in response to their persistent ingratitude.”
وَلَقَدْ جَاءَهُمْ رَسُولٌ مِّنْهُمْ فَكَذَّبُوهُ فَأَخَذَهُمُ الْعَذَابُ وَهُمْ ظَالِمُونَ ١١٣
(16:113) There had certainly come to them an messenger from among themselves, but they impugned him, so the punishment seized them while they were wrongdoers.
This is the spiritual blessing added to the material ones previously mentioned. The messenger was sent to improve their worldly and afterlife conditions and warn them against ingratitude towards God blessings. However, they denied their messenger, who was a person chosen from among them and known for his divine mission and offering of guidance towards the right path. Their denial was an act of injustice, and so they were punished for their wrongdoing.
فَكُلُواْ مِمَّا رَزَقَكُمُ اللَّهُ حَلالاً طَيِّبًا وَاشْكُرُواْ نِعْمَتَ اللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ إِيَّاهُ تَعْبُدُونَ ١١٤
(16:114) So eat out of what Allah has provided you as lawful and good, and give thanks for Allah’s blessing, if it is Him that you worship.
This sets the context for the following instruction: So eat out of what Allah has provided you as lawful and good …, derived as a conclusion from the parable. Since experiencing such punishment results from ingratitude for abundant sustenance and denying the call to righteousness, people are instructed to eat what God has provided, as long as it is lawful and good, and to be thankful to God if they truly worship Him.
This elucidates the following:
Firstly: The verse encourages the consumption of all forms of sustenance provided by God, as long as it is lawful and good. This counters the interpretation by some that the verse refers specifically to consuming spoils of war as lawful and good, based on the assumption that the verse was revealed after the Battle of Badr. This view lacks evidence from the text itself, and it has already been established that the verse in question is Meccan.
Secondly: The terms “lawful” (ḥalāl) and “good” (ṭayyib) refer to sustenance that is naturally permissible and pleasing to the human constitution. This is the basis of religious lawfulness, which follows natural permissibility, given that religion aligns with human nature. God has equipped humans with the means to nourish themselves and made certain earthly substances from plants and animals suitable for their sustenance, to which their nature inclines without repulsion. This is lawful for consumption.
Thirdly: The command to eat (So eat …) is a precursor to the command to be thankful (and give thanks for Allah’s blessing). The mention of “blessing” alludes to the rationale that lays behind this command, as the nature of something being a blessing necessitates gratitude.
Fourthly: The phrase (if it is Him that you worship) is addressed to the believers, as they are the ones who worship God and no one else. The emphasis in this sentence, indicated by the placement of the object before the verb, suggests exclusivity of devotion. In contrast, polytheists worship idols and other deities besides God.
Reading this command as addressed to polytheists and claiming that “worship” here means “obedience”, or that it implies polytheists worship God through their idols, is not a convincing argument. Such a reading would require additional contextual indicators, which are absent here. Polytheists do not worship God, even in a manner that involves associating others with Him, and they do not consider their worship of idols as worship of God. They regard God as too exalted to be the focus of their worship.
The fact that the address in the verse is directed towards believers implies that the parable is intended for them, and other legislative addresses before and after this verse are also aimed at them. It has been argued that the address is for all people, both believers and non-believers, but applying this interpretation to the verses seems forced, although less problematic than restricting the address to polytheists.
إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةَ وَالدَّمَ وَلَحْمَ الْخِنزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلاَ عَادٍ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ ١١٥
(16:115) He has forbidden you only carrion, blood, the flesh of the swine, and that which has been offered to other than Allah. But should someone be compelled, without being rebellious or aggressive, indeed Allah is all-forgiving, all-merciful.
The meaning of this verse has been previously discussed in the interpretation of verses , , and .
Verses with the same meaning appear in four places in the Qurʾan: in Sūrah al-Anʿām and Sūrah al-Naḥl, which are Meccan surahs from the early and late periods of revelation in Mecca, and in Sūrah al-Baqara and Sūrah al-Māʾida, which are among the first and last revelations in Medina. It has been argued that this verse shows that forbidden foods are limited to the four mentioned categories: dead animals, blood, pork, and anything dedicated to other than God, as some scholars have pointed out.
However, a study of the sunna reveals that these are the primary prohibitions emphasized in the Qur’an, and other prohibitions are those made by the Prophet Muḥammad, as commanded by his Lord. This is supported by His statement: Take whatever the Messenger gives you, and relinquish whatever he forbids you (). Some narrations supporting this explanation have been mentioned earlier.
وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ لِمَا تَصِفُ أَلْسِنَتُكُمُ الْكَذِبَ هَذَا حَلالٌ وَهَذَا حَرَامٌ لِّتَفْتَرُواْ عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَفْتَرُونَ عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ لاَ يُفْلِحُون١١٦
(16:116) Do not say, asserting falsely with your tongues, ‘This is lawful, and this is unlawful,’ to fabricate lies against Allah. Indeed those who fabricate lies against Allah will not be felicitous.
This verse means do not claim things are lawful or unlawful based on the mere descriptions of your tongues, aiming to invent lies about God.
The address in these verses, either to believers—as suggested by their context—or to all people, supports reading the passage, Do not say, asserting falsely with your tongues, ‘This is lawful, and this is unlawful,’ as a prohibition on innovation in established societal norms and laws without divine revelation. Introducing something into the religion that is not part of it is equivalent to lying about God, even if the innovator does not attribute their actions directly to God.
Most scholars read this verse as a prohibition against the practices of the polytheists, who would deem certain things lawful, like consuming carrion, blood, and flesh sacrificed to deities other than God, or certain things as unlawful, like the Bāḥira and Sāʾiba, and so on. However, as previously noted, the context does not support this reading.
Then God explains the reason for the prohibition: Indeed those who fabricate lies against Allah will not be felicitous. He then explains why they will not be successful in the following verse:
مَتَاعٌ قَلِيلٌ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ ١١٧ وَعَلَى الَّذِينَ هَادُواْ حَرَّمْنَا مَا قَصَصْنَا عَلَيْكَ مِن قَبْلُ وَمَا ظَلَمْنَاهُمْ وَلَكِن كَانُواْ أَنفُسَهُمْ يَظْلِمُونَ ١١٨
(16:117-118) A trifling enjoyment, and there will be a painful punishment for them. We forbade to the Jews what We have recounted to you earlier, and We did not wrong them, but they used to wrong themselves.
This refers, as some have said, to what God related to His Prophet, which was revealed before Sūrah al-Naḥl without any doubt, as in His statement: To the Jews We forbade every animal having an undivided hoof … ().
The verse serves to refute objections, linking back to the previous discussion of abrogation. It is as if someone might ask: “If the forbidden foods are limited to the four mentioned: dead animals, blood, pork, and what is dedicated to other than God, and everything beyond them is permissible, then what about these things forbidden to the Children of Israel previously? Isn’t this unjust to them?”
The response to this objection is that these prohibitions were imposed on them not due to any injustice, but because of their own wrongdoing. We forbade them certain things, which were initially lawful for them, but they wronged themselves and disobeyed their Lord, so We punished them by making these things forbidden, as God says elsewhere: Due to the wrongdoing of the Jews, We prohibited them certain good things that were permitted to them (). The verse suggests that had they turned back to their Lord and repented for their sins, God would have accepted their repentance, lifted the restrictions, and permitted what had been forbidden to them, as He is All-Forgiving, Most-Merciful.
Therefore, it is clear that this verse is connected to the preceding discourse about the lawful and unlawful, addressing an implicit question, and that the following verse: Then indeed your Lord, to those who commit evil out of ignorance … is connected to it, completing its meaning.
ثُمَّ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ لِلَّذِينَ عَمِلُواْ السُّوءَ بِجَهَالَةٍ ثُمَّ تَابُواْ مِن بَعْدِ ذَلِكَ وَأَصْلَحُواْ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ مِن بَعْدِهَا لَغَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ ١١٩
(16:119) Then indeed your Lord, to those who commit evil out of ignorance (bi-jahāla) and then repent after that, and reform—indeed, after that, your Lord will surely be all-forgiving, all-merciful.
Jahāla is of the same meaning as jahl. Originally, it meant the opposite of knowledge (ʿilm), but jahāla is often used to imply a lack of full realization of reality, even if one has sufficient knowledge for moral accountability. This refers to those who commit forbidden acts in spite of knowing that they were prohibited, but due to being overwhelmed by their desires, they fail to fully contemplate the true nature of their transgression. Hence, they have knowledge of their actions and are accountable, yet remain ignorant of the full truth. If they had fully understood, they would not have committed the acts.
In the verse, “ignorance” signifies this meaning. If the intended meaning had been the first one—namely that the person simply did not know they were doing anything wrong—then the evil deed would have been unknown in terms of its ruling or subject, then the act would not be a sin requiring repentance by the perpetrator, and thus, needing forgiveness and mercy from God.
The verse, as previously indicated, is connected to what precedes it, completing its content. The meaning of the two verses is that God did not wrong the Children of Israel by forbidding the good things He had made unlawful to them; rather, they wronged themselves by committing sins and persisting in them, leading to the prohibition of these good things. Despite this, the door to forgiveness and mercy remains open, and your Lord is indeed forgiving and merciful to those who do evil out of ignorance, then repent afterwards and reform, making the repentance evident and stable. Your Lord, after such repentance, is forgiving and merciful.
The specification of repentance first by reform, then referring back to it alone in the statement: Indeed, after that (repentance), your Lord will surely be all-forgiving, all-merciful indicates that the encompassment of a servant by God’s forgiveness and mercy follows from repentance. Reform is merely to clarify that the repentance is genuine and not just an empty formality.
His statement at the end of the verse: indeed, after that, your Lord … is a summary of the detailed statement at the beginning: Then indeed your Lord, to those …, serving to maintain the listener’s understanding and highlighting the care in the subsequent forgiveness and mercy relative to repentance, similar to what was mentioned earlier: Then indeed your Lord, to those who migrated, after they were persecuted, and strived and were patient—indeed, after that, your Lord will surely be all-forgiving, all-merciful ().
إِنَّ إِبْرَاهِيمَ كَانَ أُمَّةً قَانِتًا لِلَّهِ حَنِيفًا وَلَمْ يَكُ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ ١٢٠
(16:120) Indeed Abraham was a nation obedient to Allah, a ḥanīf, and he was not one of the polytheists.
This and the following verses are connected to the previous discussion about limiting the forbidden foods to the four categories and permitting what is beyond them. These verses, up to four in total, are like a detailed explanation of what preceded them. It is as if to say: “This is the situation with the religion of Moses, in which we forbade the Children of Israel some of the good things permitted to them. As for this religion revealed to you, it is the same faith realized by Abraham, whom God chose and guided to a straight path, improving both his worldly life and hereafter. It is a balanced religion, in line with nature, permitting good things and forbidding the vile, bringing the same benefits to those who follow it as it brought to Abraham.”
The statement: Indeed, Abraham was a nation is explained by al-Rāghib in the Mufradāt as follows: “The verse, Indeed Abraham was a nation obedient to Allah, means he stood as a community in the worship of God, akin to saying someone is a tribe unto themselves.” This explanation is close to what has been reported from Ibn ʿAbbās. It has also been said that it means he was an exemplary leader to be followed, and it is also suggested that he was a unique nation during a period when there was no other monotheist on Earth but him.
As for His statement, obedient to Allah (qānitan li Allāh), a ḥanīf, and he was not one of the polytheists: Qānitan means to obey His commands and worship Him continuously, while a ḥanīf is someone who inclines away from extremes and towards the path of moderation and balance.
شَاكِرًا لِّأَنْعُمِهِ اجْتَبَاهُ وَهَدَاهُ إِلَى صِرَاطٍ مُّسْتَقِيمٍ ١٢١
(16:121) Grateful for His blessings, He chose him (ijtabā-hu) and guided him to a straight path.
Ijtibāʾ (from whence the verb ijtabā is derived) means “choice” in the sense of selecting someone specially, meaning God specifically chose him, keeping him safe from divergence in various beliefs. The sequence of Grateful for His blessings, followed by He chose him, implies that God chose Abraham because he was grateful for His blessings, supporting the previous explanation in Sūrah al-Aʿrāf that the essence of gratitude is sincerity in servitude: You will not find most of them to be grateful ().
وَآتَيْنَاهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا حَسَنَةً وَإِنَّهُ فِي الآخِرَةِ لَمِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ ١٢٢
(16:122) We gave him good (ḥasana) in this world, and in the Hereafter he will indeed be among the Righteous.
The word “good” means a good life, as Abraham was indeed wealthy and greatly respected.
We have spoken extensively about the meaning of God choosing someone (ijtibāʾ) in Sūrah Yūsuf () as referring to “guidance” (hidāya); the meaning of the Straight Path in the verse of Sūrah al-Fātiḥa: Guide us to the Straight Path (). As for the passage, and in the Hereafter he will indeed be among the Righteous, this echoes the verse of Sūrah al-Baqarah (), which also concerns Abraham.
In describing Abraham with these attributes, there’s an indication that these are the gifts of this upright religion. If a person adopts it, it will likewise lead them to what it led Abraham to.
ثُمَّ أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ أَنِ اتَّبِعْ مِلَّةَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ حَنِيفًا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ ١٢٣
(16:123) Then We revealed to you, ‘Follow the creed of Abraham, a ḥanīf, and he was not one of the polytheists.’
This verse emphasizes his quality of “inclining” towards the truth and his rejection of polytheism.
إِنَّمَا جُعِلَ السَّبْتُ عَلَى الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ وَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ لَيَحْكُمُ بَيْنَهُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ فِيمَا كَانُواْ فِيهِ يَخْتَلِفُونَ ١٢٤
(16:124) The Sabbath (sabt) was only prescribed for those who differed about it. Your Lord will indeed judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that about which they used to differ.
The root of sabt means “to cut” or “to crease.” Some have said that Saturday is named “the Sabbath” because God began creating the heavens and the earth on Sunday and completed them in six days, as mentioned, ceasing His work on the Sabbath.
One might use the verb sabata to signify that someone observed the Sabbath; the verse their fish would come to them on the Sabbath day (yawm sabtihim)—some have said it means the fish would come on the day they ceased working, others have said that it means they did not cease working, and others still have said it means they would come on days other than the Sabbath. The Sabbath was only prescribed means they were commanded to avoid working on that day; and make your sleep for rest (subātan) (), meaning a time in which you weren’t working, that you may rest in it ()—this refers to a cessation of work, symbolizing the night’s purpose for rest.
Thus, the Sabbath, as mentioned, refers to the day itself, but its meaning involves the cessation of work and its legislation. It might also refer to the concept of ceasing work, rather than the day designated for it, as apparent in the verse: their fish would come to them on the Sabbath day, visibly on the shore, but on days when they were not keeping Sabbath they would not come to them ().
The essence of the statement is that the establishment of the Sabbath was specifically ordained for those mentioned, implying a sense of exclusivity and ownership. God legislated for them to cease work one day each week, dedicating it entirely to the worship of their Lord, which is the Sabbath day, just as He has designated for Muslims a day each week for communal worship and prayer, which is Friday.
Thus, The Sabbath was only prescribed for (ʿalā) those who differed about it uses ʿalā (lit. “on”) instead of lām (“for”), similar to saying: “I have a debt over you” (lī ʿalayk dayn) meaning a duty or responsibility. It implies obligation, intensification, and trial. This shows that the imposition of the Sabbath was a burden, not a benefit, as their situation eventually led to some being cursed and others transformed into animals, as per verses and .
The most fitting interpretation of those who differed about it is their disagreement following its legislation, as they divided into groups: those who accepted it, those who rejected it, and those who hypocritically sought to work around it, as related in Sūrah al-Baqara, Sūrah al-Nisāʾ, and Sūrah al-Aʿrāf. This explanation is contrary to the idea that they differed before its imposition, where they might have been offered to observe Friday instead but were given Saturday due to their disagreement, as we find in some narrations. The meaning is that the Sabbath, or the cessation of work for worship one day a week, was imposed as a test and burden on the Israelites, who differed in their observance of it after its legislation: With some who accepted it, some who rejected it, and others who sought to work on that day while outwardly appearing to accept it. And God will judge among them on the Day of Judgement regarding their differences.
Based on this, the structure of the verse is similar to His previous statement: We forbade to the Jews what We have recounted to you earlier …(), meaning it serves as a response to an implicit question, connected to the previous discussion on abrogation. The presumption is that the imposition of the Sabbath for the Israelites was not for their benefit, but rather as a trial from God to test them, as has been repeatedly exemplified in their history due to their repeated disobedience of His commands. Essentially, this verse addresses the objection regarding the legislation of non-natural laws for the Israelites and their abrogation in this new law brought by the Prophet
It was not combined with the previous statement: We forbade to the Jews what We have recounted to you earlier …, because the matter of the Sabbath is distinct from the issue of legalizing good things and specifying forbidden foods. It is understood that the discourse, from: We forbade to the Jews … to … and he was not one of the polytheists, forms a complete sequence of seven verses, with this verse on the Sabbath being the eighth, serving as an appendix to them.
This clarifies the response to the objection about why the matter of the Sabbath is sandwiched between the command to the Prophet to follow the religion of Abraham and the directive to invite others to it. In other words, placing The Sabbath was only prescribed …, between Then We revealed to you …, and Invite to the way of your Lord …, seems disconnected, like separating a tree from its bark.
The summary of the response is that Then We revealed to you, ‘Follow the creed of Abraham …, completes the previous discourse, and The Sabbath was only prescribed …, connects to what precedes it, as we have explained. However, Invite to the way of your Lord …, represents the beginning of a new discourse, instructing the Prophet to invite to the way of God using various methods of communication, not specifically to the religion of Abraham, though the way of God is essentially the religion of Abraham.
As for the various explanations of the verb differed, there are deep disagreements. Some scholars say that the intended meaning is that the Sabbath was imposed on those who disagreed with their prophet about it, when he commanded them to honor Friday, but they deviated and chose Saturday, making it a burden upon them by God. Hence, the disagreement is seen as preceding the imposition, not following it. Sometimes, the preposition fī in ikhtalafū fī-hi (“differed about it”) is interpreted as indicating causation, meaning the disagreement did not occur concerning the Sabbath, but rather due to it.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that the verb differed means “they disobeyed”, as they contradicted their prophet regarding the Sabbath and did not dispute it.
It is also said that they were commanded to observe a day of assembly without the specific day being designated, leaving it to their discretion, leading to their scholars differing in its determination, and they were not guided by God in this regard, hence they fell into disagreement observing the Sabbath.
Another view suggests that the intended meaning is that they differed among themselves regarding the Sabbath; one group preferred Saturday over Friday, while another did the opposite, preferring Friday over Saturday. There are various other interpretations, with the basis being the narratives mentioned in some reports.
You are well aware that none of these interpretations perfectly match the verse’s wording, so we return to the explanation previously provided.
ادْعُ إِلَى سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ الْحَسَنَةِ وَجَادِلْهُم بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَن ضَلَّ عَن سَبِيلِهِ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ١٢٥
(16:125) Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom (ḥikma) and good advice (mawʿiẓa ḥasana) and dispute with them in a manner that is best (jādil-hum billatī hiya aḥsan). Indeed, your Lord knows best those who stray from His way, and He knows best those who are guided.
This undoubtedly suggests that these three elements—wisdom, good advice, and disputation in a manner that is best—are methods of communication and dialogue. It instructs the Prophet to invite people to the way of God using one of these approaches, although argumentation is not typically considered a form of invitation in its narrower sense.
Ḥikma (“wisdom”) is defined in al-Mufradāt as “attaining the truth through knowledge and reason.” Mawʿiẓa (“advice”), as defined by al-Khalīl, means to admonish people to do good in a way that softens the heart. Jidāl (“disputation”), as defined in al-Mufrafāt, is “a discussion characterized by disagreement and trying to overcome one another with arguments.”
Reflecting on these meanings, it seems that wisdom refers to an argument producing indisputable and unequivocal truth without leaving any room for ambiguity. Instruction is an exposition that softens and appeals to the heart, including elements beneficial for the listener, such as lessons, commendable acclaim, and praiseworthy effects. Disputation is using an argument to dissuade the opponent from their insistence and dispute, not necessarily with the intention of revealing the truth but to challenge their position or argument.
Thus, what God mentioned about wisdom, advice, and argumentation aligns with what is known in the discipline of logic as demonstration (burhān), rhetoric (khaṭāba), and dialectic (jidāl).
However, God Almighty has qualified advice with “good” and disputation with “the best,” indicating that not all forms of advice are good and not all forms of disputation are the best or even good. God commands only the good advice and the best form of disputation be employed in the service of the truth.
Perhaps the reasoning provided at the end of the verse, Indeed your Lord knows best those who stray from His way, and He knows best those who are guided, clarifies the rationale for such a limitation. This means that God is most knowledgeable about the state of those who have deviated from His true religion and those who are rightly guided. He knows that what benefits this path are wisdom, good advice, and the best forms of disputation, and nothing else.
Sound judgement supports this, as His way is the true belief and righteous action. It is known that inviting to it through advice, for example, by someone who does not heed their own advice, is effectively an invitation to the opposite of what is verbally promoted. Similarly, inviting through disputation using false premises accepted by the opponent to demonstrate the truth is promoting the truth by promoting falsehood, or if you will, promoting the truth by extinguishing it, unless these false premises are being presented to expose the falsity of the opponent’s claims.
Therefore, it becomes evident that the goodness of advice is in terms of its beneficial effect on the truth intended by it. The one giving advice themselves should heed the advice they give, employing commendable character traits that enhance the reception and acceptance in the listener’s heart, softening it and making it receptive.
In disputation, one should avoid anything that might provoke the opponent to respond with stubbornness or lead them to obstinacy and belligerence. The use of false premises, even if accepted by the opponent, should be avoided unless it is for contradiction. Care should be taken to avoid poor expression, derogation of the opponent or their sacred beliefs, insults, or any other form of ignorance, as this would be reviving truth through falsehood, essentially nullifying the truth, as mentioned.
Disputation requires a higher degree of excellence than advice, which is why God Almighty permits only the good in instruction and only the best in disputation.
In His statement, Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good advice and dispute with them in a manner that is best, there is a prioritization in terms of individuals. Wisdom is authorised in all its aspects, advice is divided into good and not good with only the good advice being sanctioned, and disputation is divided into good and not good, then the good further into the best and others, with only the best form of disputation being authorised. The verse remains silent about distributing these methods according to the invitees, so the key to their use depends on the context, aiming for a positive impact and the manifestation of truth.
It is possible that in one situation all three methods are used, while in another, only two or one method may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances and context.
From this, it becomes clear that the view of some commentators that the verse apparently suggests combining all three methods in the Prophet’s preaching is not necessarily correct, as there is no evidence suggesting the necessity of combining them for every individual recipient. However, for all recipients collectively, this combination is indeed achievable.
Similarly, the suggestion by some that the three methods mentioned in the verse are ordered according to the varying levels of understanding among people in their readiness to accept the truth has its intricacies but does not necessarily imply that each method is exclusive to a particular level of understanding: People with high intellectual capacity, the elite, are invited with wisdom, which is reasoning. The common people, with their predispositions to tangible things and strong adherence to traditions and customs, are invited with good advice. Those who are obstinate and argumentative, who debate falsehood to negate truth and stubbornly adhere to their ancestral fallacies, are those who are commanded to be disputed with in the best manner.
While this viewpoint has its subtleties, it does not exclude the possibility that the elite might benefit from advice and disputation, or that the common people, deeply entrenched in customs and traditions, might benefit from the best form of argumentation. There’s no explicit indication in the verse’s language to support this specificity of methods to certain groups.
Similarly, some have mentioned that argumentation in the best manner is not a part of invitation at all, but rather has a different purpose, which is to obligate and expose the fallacy. They said: “This is why the disputation in the verse is not coordinated with what precedes it, but the context is changed, stating: and dispute with them in a manner that is best.” However, this overlooks the true nature of dialectical reasoning. While exposing fallacy might be the goal of dialectical reasoning, it is not always the end goal, as often an argument is composed of accepted or given premises, especially in practical matters and non-certain sciences like jurisprudence, legal theory, ethics, and literary arts, without necessarily intending to obligate or expose fallacy.
Moreover, in argumentation and exposing fallacies, there is an invitation, just as there is an invitation in advising, albeit with different forms depending on the methods. Yes, the change in context is due to the contentious and combative nature of argumentation.
وَإِنْ عَاقَبْتُمْ فَعَاقِبُواْ بِمِثْلِ مَا عُوقِبْتُم بِهِ وَلَئِن صَبَرْتُمْ لَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لِّلصَّابِرِينَ ١٢٦
(16:126) And if you retaliate (wa in ʿāqabtum), retaliate with the like of what you have been made to suffer, but if you are patient that is surely better for the patient.
In al-Mufradāt, al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī writes is said in the lexicon that ʿaqūba, ʿiqāb, and muʿāqaba all signify punishment and retribution. The root meaning of ʿaqab (from whence the verb ʿāqabtum is derived) is the back or rear of the foot, and the consequence or outcome (ʿaqīb) of a matter is what follows it. To retaliate (muʿāqaba) against someone is to bring something unpleasant upon them following their action that caused you harm, fitting the concept of retribution or equivalent recompense.
Thus, His statement: And if you retaliate, retaliate with the like of what you have been made to suffer … is addressed to the Muslims, as the context suggests, implying that the intended retaliation is against the polytheists and disbelievers, and with the like of what you have been made to suffer refers to the disbelievers’ punishment of them for believing in God and rejecting their idols.
Therefore, the meaning of the verse is: “If you intend to retaliate against the disbelievers and punish them, then do so with the same measure they used to punish you for your faith and struggle in the cause of God.”
… but if you are patient that is surely better for the patient—This means if you endure the hardship you faced without seeking retribution, it is better for you, as you are patient. This is preferable because it involves preferring God’s pleasure and reward in enduring trials and tribulations over satisfying one’s desire for revenge. This act becomes purely for God’s sake, and in forgiveness and pardon, there lies the practice of noble character, which has its beautiful consequences for the one who observes it.
وَاصْبِرْ وَمَا صَبْرُكَ إِلاَّ بِاللَّهِ وَلاَ تَحْزَنْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ تَكُ فِي ضَيْقٍ مِّمَّا يَمْكُرُونَ ١٢٧
(16:127) So be patient, and you cannot be patient except with Allah. And do not grieve for them, nor be upset by their guile.
This is a command to the Prophet Muḥammad to be patient and a reassurance to him that God strengthens him to endure the hardships in His path. God mentions that his patience is only through His power and strength. Then He commands him to be patient, implying that the Prophet is capable of what He commands him to do. Thus, and you cannot be patient except with Allah, indicates that God has empowered the Prophet for what He has commanded him to do.
His statement, And do not grieve for them, refers to the disbelievers, on account of their disbelief. This meaning has been previously explained in this chapter and others.
His statement, … nor be upset by their guile, apparently means to forbid feeling distressed by their scheming, either currently or continuously, rather than just in the future.
إِنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الَّذِينَ اتَّقَواْ وَّالَّذِينَ هُم مُّحْسِنُونَ ١٢٨
(16:128) Indeed Allah is with those who are Godwary and those who are virtuous.
This signifies that both piety and excellence each independently lead to divine support and nullify the plots of the religion’s enemies, countering their schemes. Thus, this verse explains the reason for the statement, nor be upset by their guile, and promises victory.
These last three verses of the chapter (126-128) are more akin in their content to the Medinan verses than the Meccan ones. There are reports from both Sunnī and Shīʿa sources stating that they were revealed as the Prophet Muḥammad returned from Uḥud, which will be discussed in the section on narrations, below. Although it is possible to connect them to the preceding verses, as some have attempted, it is important to note that the verse preceding these three aligns more closely with the purpose of the chapter. Ignoring the verses, “And those who emigrated” and “Whoever disbelieves in God after his belief,” along with a few others, and the statement, “And if you punish,” to the end of the chapter, the verses of the chapter follow a single, connected narrative.
Examining Narrations
- In the Tafsīr al-Qummī, regarding the verse, Allah draws a parable … (), it is stated: Imām ʿAlī said, “This verse was revealed concerning a people who had a river called al-Tharthār. Their land was fertile and abounding in goodness. They used dough for cleanliness after relieving themselves, saying it was softer for them. Thus, they disbelieved in God’s blessings and treated them lightly, leading to God withholding waters of the River Tharthār, causing drought to the extent that they were compelled to eat the very dough they used for cleansing, even rationing it among themselves.
Author’s comment: This narration is also found in al-Kāfī, reported by ʿAmr b. Shimr from Abū ʿAbd Allāh, with detailed explanation. Al-ʿAyyāshī also narrated from Ḥafṣ and Zayd al-Shaḥḥām from him.
- In al-Durr al-Manthūr, Ibn Mardawayh reports from Anas b. Mālik, who stated that the Prophet Muḥammad said, “No servant is witnessed for by a nation unless God accepts their testimony. A “nation” refers to a man and those who come after him. Indeed, God says, Indeed Abraham was a nation obedient to Allah, a ḥanīf, and he was not one of the polytheists.”
Author’s comment: The explanation of the verses about testimony related to this tradition has been previously discussed.
- In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, from Sumāʿa b. Mihrān, it is reported that he heard Abū ʿAbd Allāh saying, “Indeed, in the world and everything in it there was only one person worshiping God: Abraham. If there had been anyone else with him, they would have been included. This is when God says, Indeed Abraham was a nation obedient to Allah, a ḥanīf, and he was not one of the polytheists. Abraham remained in this state as long as God willed, then God consoled him with Ishmael and Isaac, so they became three.”
Author’s comment: This is also reported in al-Kāfī from Sumāʿa, from “a righteous servant.”
- In al-Durr al-Manthūr, it is related from al-Shāfiʿī in Kitāb al-Umm, Bukhārī, and Muslim, all of whom report from Abū Hurayra, who narrated that the Prophet Muḥammad said, “We are the last to come but the foremost on the Day of Judgement. The others were given the Book before us, and we received it after them. Friday is their day which was prescribed for them, but they disagreed over it. God guided us to it. Thus, others follow us in this regard: the Jews tomorrow and the Christians the day after.”
Author’s comment: Similar narrations are reported by Aḥmad and Muslim from Abū Hurayra and Ḥudayfa from him, but this narration is not found in commentaries on this verse.
- In al-Durr al-Manthūr, Ibn Mardawayh reports from Abū Layla al-Ashʿarī that the Prophet said, “Adhere to obedience to your leaders and do not oppose them, as obedience to them is obedience to God, and disobedience to them is disobedience to God. God has indeed sent me to call to His path with wisdom and good advice. Whoever opposes me in this is among the doomed, and God and His Messenger’s responsibility for him is absolved. Whoever takes charge of any of your affairs and acts contrary to this, upon him is the curse of God, the angels, and all the people.”
- In Tafsīr al-Qummī, regarding the verse and dispute with them in a manner that is best, it is said: Imām ʿAlī commented, “With the Qur’an.”
- In al-Kāfī, it is narrated from Abū ʿAmr al-Zubarī who heard from Abū ʿAbd Allāh regarding the verse, Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good advice and dispute with them in a manner that is best (): “It means according the Qurʾan.”
Author’s comment: It appears that this is a reading of in a manner that is best, and it essentially means to argue according to the etiquette prescribed in the Qur’an, which contains the etiquettes set down by God in there.
- In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, it is narrated from Ḥasan b. Ḥamza: I heard Abū ʿAbd Allāh saying, “When the Messenger of God saw what was done to Ḥamza b. ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, he said, “O God, to You belongs all praise and to You are all complaints, and You are the One sought for help against what I see.” Then he said, “If I overcome Quraysh, I will surely mutilate seventy men in return.” Then God revealed: And if you retaliate, retaliate with the like of what you have been made to suffer, but if you are patient that is surely better for the patient. So the Messenger of God said, “I will be patient, I will be patient.”
- And in al-Durr al-Manthūr, it is reported by Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Ṭabarānī, Ibn Mardawayh, and al-Bayhaqī in Dalāʾil that Ibn ʿAbbās said, “On the day Ḥamza was killed and mutilated, the Messenger of God said, “If I overcome Quraysh, I will surely mutilate seventy men from them.” Then God revealed the verse, and the Messenger of God said, “Rather, we will be patient, O Lord.” So he was patient and forbade mutilation.”
Author’s comment: Similar narrations were also reported from Ubayy b. Kaʿb, Abū Hurayra, and others from the Prophet.