Verses 2–8
These verses at the beginning of the chapter apparently discuss the divine custom with regard to human communities: It is to guide them to the way of servitude and the path of monotheism, and to enable them to reach that through their own choice. That is why God has given mankind the bounties of this world [as means] and the blessings of the hereafter [as rewards], and has provided them with the means of obedience and disobedience. If they obey and do good, He will reward them with happiness in this world and the hereafter. If they disobey and do evil , He will requite them with penalty in this world and torment in the hereafter.
These seven verses present an example of the above universal custom applied to the Israelites. God revealed the Book to their prophet and made it a [source of] guidance for them to follow. He decreed that they would behave haughtily, transgress and sin. Then God would exact vengeance upon them by letting their enemy defeat, subjugate, kill and enslave them. They would then return to obedience and God would return to bestowing favors and being merciful to them. Then they would be haughty and transgress again, and thus God would exact vengeance on them again, fiercer than the first time. It is then hoped that their Lord will have mercy on them, but if they return [to mischief again], He will return [to His custom of punishment].
From this, it can be inferred that these seven verses are like an introduction to what is said next about the application of this universal custom to this nation [of Islam]. The seven verses are like a parenthetical discussion between the first verse and the ninth.
Commentary
وَءَاتَيْنَا مُوسَى ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ وَجَعَلْنَـٰهُ هُدًى لِّبَنِىٓ إِسْرَٰٓءِيلَ أَلَّا تَتَّخِذُوا۟ مِن دُونِى وَكِيلًا ٢
(17:2) And We gave Moses the Book and made it a guidance to the children of Israel, saying (an): Do not take a protector (wakīlan) besides Me.
The term “book” is often used in the Qur’an to refer to the entire set of religious injunctions that have been prescribed for the people to settle their disagreements over beliefs or actions. It involves an indication that it includes doctrinal and practical duties which they have to take on and engage in. That may be why the verse has used the word “Book” (al-kitāb) instead of “Torah” to show that it included codes of religious law that were “prescribed” or “written” for them.
Given this meaning of the Book, the next part of the verse (and made it a guidance to the children of Israel) is an interpretation of the first part (We gave Moses the Book). This book was guidance (hudā) to them, meaning that it was their guide (hādī), because it explained for them the religious laws of their Lord that if they were to adopt they would be guided to the truth and would attain felicity in both worlds.
…saying (an): Do not take a protector (wakīlan) besides Me: The particle an (lit. “that”) is explanatory. Here it means: What follows is a summary of the contents of the Book which was made guidance for them. Thus it ultimately means that in short, what the Book was explaining to them and guiding them toward was that it prohibited them from associating anything with God or adopting anyone else as a protector.
If the implied second person pronoun in “Do not take a protector besides Me” refers to the Israelites, then this statement is an interpretation of the previous part (made it a guidance to the children of Israel). But if it refers to both Moses and the Israelites, then the statement would be an interpretation for everything thus far in the verse.
There is a shift of address (iltifāt) in the verse from the majestic plural (the royal “We”) to the first person singular. This is because the majestic plural is for aggrandizement. If the majestic plural were to be maintained to the end, then the verse would have to say: “Do not take protectors besides Us,” which contravenes the sense of monotheism intended in this command. That is why there is a shift to the first person singular. Then, once this consideration is over in the next verse, it shifts back to the previous tone [of majestic plural]: The offspring of those whom We bore with Noah ().
Adopting a wakīl (guardian, protector) besides God reduces to polytheism because a wakīl is someone who is charged with taking care of the essential affairs of his appointer (muwakkil) and proceeds to fulfil his needs. This can only be God. Hence, adopting someone else as a lord is equivalent to adopting someone else as a wakīl
ذُرِّيَّةَ مَنْ حَمَلْنَا مَعَ نُوحٍ ۚ إِنَّهُۥ كَانَ عَبْدًا شَكُورًا ٣
(17:3) The offspring (dhurriyyata) of those whom We bore with Nūḥ; surely he was a grateful servant.
Dhurriyyah [from a root that is used for tiny things like ants and atoms] refers to one’s children, as they are small and connected to their fathers. Its inflection (in the form of naṣb) indicates exclusivity (ikhtiṣāṣ), which shows a special attention by the speaker to this description in his speech. It serves as a justification, similar to the verse: God only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O People of the House (Ahl al-Bayt, in the form of naṣb)! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying (), which says that God wants to do this [purification] to you because you are the People of the House of prophethood. Likewise, “The offspring of those whom We bore with Noah” acts as a justification for what precedes it [in the previous verse], just as the subsequent part of the verse (surely he was a grateful servant) serves as a justification for it [that is, for the first part of the verse].
The first [justification] is inferred from the apparent meaning of the verse, which suggests that God’s special attention to the Israelites was because of His previous promise to the passengers on Noah’s Ark. When He rescued them from the flood He told Noah: O Noah! descend with peace from Us and blessings on you and on the people from among those who are with you, and there shall be nations whom We will afford provisions, then a painful punishment from Us shall afflict them (). This promise was fulfilled when He revealed the Book to Moses and made it a guidance for the Israelites, as the descendants of the people of the Ark, according to God’s established custom in all nations. The verses are effectively saying: We revealed the Book to Moses and made it a guidance for the Israelites because they were the offspring of those whom We bore with Noah, for We promised them peace, blessings and provisions.
The second [justification] is because this custom—that is, the custom of guiding, instructing and calling toward monotheism—is the same custom which Noah took upon himself before anyone else in the human world. By doing so he showed grateful for God’s blessing and worshipped Him exclusively. It has been stated repeatedly in this tafsīr that gratitude (shukr) is essentially concomitant to exclusive worship. God then thanked him, made his legacy survive as long as the world survives, gave him the greeting of peace in all the worlds and rewarded him for his every good word and proper deed until the Day of Resurrection. He says: And We made his offspring the survivors. And We perpetuated to him (praise) among the later generations. Peace and salutation to Noah among the nations. Thus do We surely reward the doers of good (). The meaning of the two verses can be summarised as: Surely We rewarded Noah for being a grateful servant to Us. Surely We allowed his call to survive and applied his custom and way to the offspring of those whom We bore with him in the Ark. It was for this reason that we revealed the Book to Moses and made it a guidance for the Israelites.
It is deduced from “The offspring of those whom We bore with Noah” () and from “And We made his offspring the survivors” () that all people are Noah’s descendants both maternally and paternally. If offspring (dhurriyyah) were restricted to his male line—meaning that “those whom We bore with Noah” only referred to his sons—then it would have been better, even incumbent, for the verse to say: “The offspring of Noah” [instead of “The offspring of those whom We bore with Noah”].
The exegetes have many other views for the inflection (iʿrāb) of the [words in] the verse. For example, some have said that dhurriyyata is vocative, where the vocative particle yā (lit. “O”) is omitted. The implied meaning would be: O, offspring of those whom We bore… It is also said that dhurriyyata is the first object of tattakhidhū (take, in ), and its second object is wakīlan (protector). The implied meaning would be: Do not take the offspring of those whom We bore with Noah as protector besides Me. Others have suggested that dhurriyyata is in apposition to Moses in the previous verse. These explanations clearly lack substance.
Another such interpretation is that the pronoun “he” in “surely he was” refers to Moses instead of Noah, and thus the sentence justifies why Moses was given the Book or why Moses was made a guide for the Israelites— based on the pronoun in “and made it a guidance” [where “it” can also be translated as “he”] referring to Moses instead of the Book.
وَقَضَيْنَآ إِلَىٰ بَنِىٓ إِسْرَٰٓءِيلَ فِى ٱلْكِتَـٰبِ لَتُفْسِدُنَّ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ مَرَّتَيْنِ وَلَتَعْلُنَّ عُلُوًّا كَبِيرًا ٤
(17:4) And We had made known (qaḍaynā, from qaḍāʾ) to the children of Israel in the Book: Most certainly you will make mischief in the land twice, and most certainly you will behave insolently with great insolence (ʿuluwwan).
Al-Rāghib says in al-Mufradāt:
Qaḍāʾ means deciding a matter whether by word or deed. There are two kinds of each: divine and human. Examples of divine word are:
And your Lord has commanded (qaḍā) that you shall not serve (any) but Him. ()
And We had made known (qaḍaynā) to the children of Israel in the Book. ()
This is qaḍāʾ in the sense of informing and making a decisive ruling. That is, “We informed them about this through a sure revelation to them.”
Similar to this is, And We revealed (qaḍaynā) to him this decree, that the roots of these shall be cut off. ()
Examples of divine action are:
And Allāh judges with (yaqḍī bi) the truth; and those whom they call upon besides Him cannot judge (lā yaqḍūna bi) aught. () So He ordained them (fa-qaḍāhunna) seven heavens in two periods (). This is an allusion to God’s novel origination of the universe and His completion of it. The same idea is seen in the following description of God: Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth (; ).
An example of human word is like a judge’s verdict (qaḍāʾ) because a judge’s decision (ḥukm) is oral.
Examples of human action are: So when you have performed (qaḍaytum) your devotions. () Then let them accomplish (li-yaqḍū) their needful acts of shaving and cleansing, and let them fulfil their vows. ()
ʿUluww means elevation, but here it is a way of referring to their transgression of limits by wrongdoing and oppression. The evidence for this meaning is an explanatory conjunction (ʿatf al-tafsīr) of this term: “make mischief.” The same meaning is seen in the following verse: Surely Pharaoh exalted himself (ʿalā) in the land and made its people into parties ().
The implied meaning of the verse is: We informed and made it decisively known to the Israelites in the Book, that is, the Torah, that I swear and say truthfully that you people of Israel will make mischief twice in the land—the land of Palestine and its environs—one time after another. You will behave haughtily and will transgress the boundaries excessively.
فَإِذَا جَآءَ وَعْدُ أُولَىٰهُمَا بَعَثْنَا عَلَيْكُمْ عِبَادًا لَّنَآ أُو۟لِى بَأْسٍ شَدِيدٍ فَجَاسُوا۟ خِلَـٰلَ ٱلدِّيَارِ ۚ وَكَانَ وَعْدًا مَّفْعُولًا ٥
(17:5) So when the promise for the first of the two (ūlāhumā) came, We sent over you Our servants, of mighty prowess (baʾs), so they went to and fro (jāsū) among the houses, and it was a promise to be accomplished.
Al-Rāghib says:
Buʾs, baʾs and baʾsāʾ mean hardship and unpleasantness, except that buʾs is used more for poverty and war, while baʾs and baʾsāʾ are used for punishment, as in: And Allāh is strongest in prowess (baʾsan) and strongest to give an exemplary punishment ().
Majmaʿ al-bayān says:
Jaws means going to and fro among the houses. One says: I let so-and-so step over (yajūsu) a certain tribe. Yajūsuhum and yadūsuhum mean: “he tramples them underfoot.” Abū ʿUbayd says: Anywhere that you go and step, it is said that you ḥustahu wa justahu. It is also said that jaws means going to great lengths in search of something.
So when the promise for the first of the two came: This follows on sequentially from, Most certainly you will make mischief (). The dual pronoun [in ūlāhumā] refers to the two times that they shall make mischief. “The first of the two” means the first mischief. “The promise for the first of the two” means the exemplary punishment and vengeance which God promised them for their mischief. That is, “promise” (waʿd) here means “that which is promised” (mawʿūd). The “coming” of the promise is an allusion to the time when it will be fulfilled. This shows that they were given two promises for their mischief, but the verse has not mentioned two fulfillments for brevity. The verse is effectively saying: Most certainly you will make mischief in the land twice, and We promise you vengeance for each [time]. So when the promise for the first of the two came, We sent over you Our servants, of mighty prowess (baʾs), so they went to and fro (jāsū) among the houses, and it was a promise to be accomplished. These points are drawn from the context of the verse.
…We sent over you Our servants, of mighty prowess, so they went to and fro among the houses: That is, We made them to rise and sent them to you to subjugate you and exact vengeance on you. The idea that this raising and sending was to exact vengeance and subjugate is deduced from the subsequent part of the verse: “servants of mighty prowess (baʾs)…”
There is no harm in deeming their coming to the Israelites—along with all the killing, devastation, enslavement, imprisonment, plundering and destruction that it brought about—to be divinely sent because it was by way of punishment for their mischief in the land, their haughtiness, and their unwarranted transgressions. Thus God was not unfair to them in sending their enemies to them and supporting their enemies against them. Rather [it was] they who had wronged themselves.
Based on the above, one cannot argue that terms like “We sent” and “servants” show that these were believers; that is, We commanded “a believing people” to fight and wage holy war against you. There is no problem in attributing this act [of sending] to God so long as it is a means of punishment. Similarly, there is no problem in calling the unbelievers “God’s servants” especially when they are described as “of mighty prowess.”
Two other suggested interpretations are:
(1) Those who were sent were believers commanded by God to do jihad against the others [disobedient Israelites].
(2) Perhaps they were unbelievers with whom one of the prophets made a pact to wage war against the other unbelievers and sinners [in Israel] to rule over them. The answer to these two views is similar to what we just said [that the ascription is acceptable because it was a punishment for their own misdeeds].
…and it was a promise to be accomplished: This emphasizes that what God declared to them was decisive and certain. The implied meaning is: When the time of the first promise that We had made came about—for the first of your two mischiefs—We dispatched and raised against you servants of Ours who were of great retributive prowess from among the people. They entered your land by force and through seizure, went right into the middle of your homes, subjected you, and seized your independence, greatness and sovereignty. This was a promise to be accomplished, without any escape from it.
ثُمَّ رَدَدْنَا لَكُمُ ٱلْكَرَّةَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَمْدَدْنَـٰكُم بِأَمْوَٰلٍ وَبَنِينَ وَجَعَلْنَـٰكُمْ أَكْثَرَ نَفِيرًا ٦
(17:6) Then We gave you back the turn (al-karrah) to prevail against them, and aided you with wealth and children and made you a numerous band (nafīran).
Majmaʿ al-bayān says:
Karrah means returning and coming around. Nafīr is a number of men. Al-Zajjāj says: It is possible that it is the plural of nafar (individual) just as one says abīd, ḍaʾīn, maʿīz and kalīb [for the plurals of ʿabd (slave), ḍaʾn (sheep), maʿz (goat) and kalb (dog), respectively]. A person’s nafar, nafr, nafīr or nāfirah is his band that helps him and goes forth (yanfirūna) with him.
The meaning of the verse is clear. Its apparent meaning is that the Israelites will regain their rule over their enemies after the promise of the first round. They will defeat them, overpower them and be freed from their enslavement and captivity. This will be a gradual process over a fair period of time, as suggested by the idea of being aided by wealth and children, and being made a numerous band [in terms of size and/ or strength]. The next verse (If you do good, you will do good for your own souls, and if you do evil, it shall be for them) bears a hint, or rather a clear indication given the context, that the Israelites’ second turn against their enemies was because of their return to righteousness after tasting the punishment for their initial evildoing. Similarly, the occurrence of the second promise was because of their second return to evildoing after their return to righteousness.
إِنْ أَحْسَنتُمْ أَحْسَنتُمْ لِأَنفُسِكُمْ ۖ وَإِنْ أَسَأْتُمْ فَلَهَا ۚ فَإِذَا جَآءَ وَعْدُ ٱلْـَٔاخِرَةِ لِيَسُـۥٓـُٔوا۟ وُجُوهَكُمْ وَلِيَدْخُلُوا۟ ٱلْمَسْجِدَ كَمَا دَخَلُوهُ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ وَلِيُتَبِّرُوا۟ مَا عَلَوْا۟ تَتْبِيرًا ٧
(17:7) If you do good, you will do good for your own souls (lianfusikum), and if you do evil, it shall be for them (lahā). So when the second promise came that they may bring you to grief (li-yasūʾū) and that they may enter the mosque as they entered it the first time, and that they might destroy whatever they gained ascendancy over with utter destruction (tatbīran).
The letter lām in li-anfusikum and lahā shows exclusivity. That is, doing good and doing evil pretains to them alone and not others. It is God’s enduring custom that the consequence and result of a deed should return to the doer, whether it is good or bad. This idea is also found in: This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn ().
The message here is that a person is responsible for the good or bad consequence of his deed, not the idea that doing good is beneficial to him and doing evil is detrimental to him. If that were the intended meaning, the verse should have said: “If you do evil, it shall be against your own souls,” [instead of for your souls], as seen in the verse: For it is (the benefit of) what it has earned and against it (the evil of) what it has wrought ().
Thus there is no need for the contrivance of some exegetes that the letter lām in “and if you do evil, it shall be for them (lahā)” means ʿalā (against). The same goes with others who have said that the lām means ilā (to), because that is the particle that makes isāʾah (doing evil) transitive, as one says: “so-and-so did evil to (ilā) so-and-so.” The same applies to what others have said, that the lām indicates that they deserve the punishment, as in: And they shall have (lahum) a painful chastisement (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ).
One might argue that the lām cannot indicate exclusivity because the reality is different: The consequence of doing good often affects more than just the doer of the good, and the consequence of doing evil often affects more than just the evildoer, as it is evident.
The answer to this is that it overlooks the Noble Qur’an’s position on the consequences of actions. As for the eschatological consequences of actions, they do not spread beyond the doer whatsoever. He says: Whoever disbelieves, he shall be responsible for his disbelief, and whoever does good, they prepare (good) for their own souls (). As for consequences in this world, actions do not affect anyone apart from the doer unless God wishes otherwise—as a means of blessing, punishing or testing someone else. It is not always within the doer’s power to make the consequence of his action reach others, except for when God wants that. However the consequences, whether good or bad, always reach the doer without exception.
The doer of good gets a share of the good that he does, and the doer of evil gets a share of the evil that he does. He says: So he who has done an atom's weight of good shall see it and he who has done an atom’s weight of evil shall see it. (). Thus the consequence of an action does not leave the doer for anyone else. This is the meaning of what is narrated from ʿAlī: “You do not do anyone any good or harm”—and then he recited this verse [as evidence].
So when the second promise came that they may bring you to grief (li-yasūʾū): Tatbīr means destruction. It is derived from tabār which means ruin and destruction.
Li-yasūʾū is derived from masāʾah . The verb sāʾa is used when one causes grief for someone else. The letter lām [in Li-yasūʾū] is purposive, and it is said that there is an implied verb that is omitted for brevity. The implied meaning is: We sent them to bring you grief by the appearance of sorrow, desolation, and signs of subjugation, abjection and the humiliation of enslavement on your faces. They will do so by their massacre, imprisonment and plunder against you.
…and that they may enter the mosque as they entered it the first time: Mosque here means the Farthest Mosque (al-Masjid al-Aqṣā): Bayt al-Maqdis. Some exegetes have suggested that it means the entire holy land by extension, but there are no grounds for this interpretation. The following points can be deduced from the verse:
1. They [the enemies] also entered the mosque by force upon the first promise. This was not previously mentioned for the sake of brevity.
2. Their entry into the mosque was just to desecrate and destroy it.
3. Apparently the attackers that were sent [by God] to punish the Israelites and take revenge on them are the same ones who were dispatched against them the first time.
and that they might destroy whatever (mā) they gained ascendancy over with utter destruction: That is: The above [attack] was so that they may destroy what they had won by taking lives, burning properties, demolishing buildings and destroying the country. Another possibility is that the particle mā is infinitival (maṣdariyyah), with an omitted annexed word. In that case, the implied meaning would be: That they might destroy utterly throughout the period of their ascendancy. The first interpretation springs more readily to mind and fits the context better. The analogy drawn between the two promises—that is, We sent over you Our servants, and that they may bring you to grief—shows that the second one was worse and bitterer for the Israelites. They were nearly exterminated and driven to extinction. The phrase “destroy with utter destruction” suffices to show this.
The meaning is: So when the promise came the last time—after your second mischief—We sent them to bring you grief—through the appearance of sorrow, depression, humiliation and wretchedness in your faces— and so that they might enter the Farthest Mosque as they had entered it the first time, to destroy what they had won and ruin anything that they passed over by demolishing and killing.
عَسَىٰ رَبُّكُمْ أَن يَرْحَمَكُمْ ۚ وَإِنْ عُدتُّمْ عُدْنَا ۘ وَجَعَلْنَا جَهَنَّمَ لِلْكَـٰفِرِينَ حَصِيرًا ٨
(17:8) It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you, and if you again return We too will return, and We have made hell a prison (ḥaṣīran) for the unbelievers.
Ḥaṣīr is derived from ḥaṣr, which means straitening and detaining. He says: wa uḥṣurūhum (), which means: and besiege them.
The clause, It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you… refers to after the second dispatch, according to the context of the verses. It gives hopes of mercy, on the condition that they repent and return to obedience and doing good, as evidenced by His Words: and if you again return We too will return. That is, if you return to mischief and haughtiness again after coming back from it and after your Lord’s mercy on you, then We will return to punishment and making an example [out of you]. We have made hell a prison and place of detainment for the unbelievers from which they cannot escape.
This sentence [It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you] involves a shift from the majestic plural to the third person. The reason for this is to indicate that the default position dictated by God’s Lordship: to have mercy on His servants as long as they follow what their creation entails and what their primary nature (fiṭrah) directs them toward, unless they deviate from the line of their creation and leave the path of their primary nature. The allusion to this point makes it necessary to mention the divine attribute “Lord,” and that is why there was a need to shift the tone from the majestic plural to the third person. Then, once the point has been made fully (by saying: It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you) the verse’s expression returns to the way it was.
Examining Narrations
(1) Imam al-Bāqir said:
Noah was called a grateful servant because he used to utter every morning and evening: “O God, verily I take You as witness that any blessing or well-being in religious or worldly affairs that comes upon me in the evening or the morning is from You alone. You have no partner. To You I owe all praise and thank for it until You are satisfied and after Your satisfaction.”
Author’s comment: The same thing with slight variations is narrated via various routes in al-Kāfī, Tafsīr al-Qummī and Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī.
(2) The Prophet said:
Noah would not carry anything, big or small, without saying: “In the Name of God. Praise be to God.” That is why God called him a grateful servant.
Author’s comment: The narrations do not contradict the explanation of shukr as sincerity above, for indeed his supplication was out of his actualization of the reality of his supplication. That is inseparable from sincerity in servitude.
(3) Imam al-Ṣādiq said:
And We had made known to the children of Israel in the Book: Most certainly you will make mischief in the land twice (): This refers to killing the Commander of the Faithful [Imam ʿAlī] and stabbing al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī. And most certainly you will behave insolently with great insolence: This refers to killing al-Ḥusayn. So when the promise for the first of the two came: That is, when assistance for al-Ḥusayn comes; We will send over you Our servants, of mighty prowess so they will go to and fro among the houses: These are people sent by God before the rising of the Qāʾim. They will take vengeance for all blood from Muḥammad’s family [that was shed unjustly]. This is a promise to be accomplished.
Author’s comment: There are other narrations with the same meaning. They intend to match the events which will take place in this nation with those which happened to the Israelites, confirming what is masstransmitted (mutawātir) from the Prophet that “this nation will commit what the Israelites committed, shoe for shoe and fletching for fletching, to the extent that if they [the Israelites] entered a lizard’s hole, so will they [the Muslims].” These narrations, however, do not serve to interpret the verses. Evidence to this is their discrepancy in what is being matched with the verses.
As for the original story behind these noble verses, there is astonishing discrepancy between the narrations, making it impossible to rely on them. That is why we have eschewed citing them here. Whoever desires can refer to the Sunni and Shia hadith collections. Many important calamities—more than two—beset the Israelites since they gained independence, dominion and sovereignty according to historical records. These verses could apply to two of them. However, it is almost certain to the scholars [of hadith and history] that one of the two punishments talked about in the verse refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest, who was the kings of Babylon approximately six centuries BC.
Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful and influential king and one of the tyrants of his time. He used to support the Israelites, but they disobeyed and rebelled against him. Thus he advanced on them with armies that they could not resist, besieged their cities and conquered them by force. He ruined the cities and destroyed the Farthest Mosque [that is, the Temple], burned the Torah and the scriptures of the prophets, and wiped people out through genocide. No one remained of them except for a tiny minority of women, children and weak men, whom he took prisoner and drove with him to Babylon. They stayed there with no one to defend or protect them throughout Nebuchadnezzar’s lifetime, until Cyrus, one of the great Persian kings, attacked Babylon, conquered it, and showed lenience toward the Israelite prisoners. He allowed them to return to the Holy Land and helped them rebuild the Temple—the Farthest Mosque—and renovate the buildings. He allowed Ezra (ʿIzrā), one of their priests, to rewrite the Torah for them. That was four hundred and fifty-some years BC.
What is apparent from Jewish history is that the one sent first to destroy Bayt al-Maqdis was Nebuchadnezzar. It remained ruined for seventy years. The one sent the second time was the Roman emperor Vespasian, who sent his vizier Titus [to Jerusalem]. He destroyed the House and subjugated the people roughly a century BC.
It would not be surprising if the two events are what the verses are talking about, because the other events did not exterminate a large number of them or take away their dominion or independence all at once. However the Nebuchadnezzar disaster entirely removed them and abolished their sovereignty until the time of Cyrus. They were then repatriated for a time until the Romans defeated them and took away their power and might. The Jews remained in that state until the appearance of Islam.
The only thing which makes this unlikely is that the verses suggest that the same people were sent to [attack] the Israelites both the first and the second time, as we discussed above in the exposition of the verses. “Then We gave you back the turn to prevail against them”: This suggests that the Israelites prevailed against the same people who were originally sent against them. “So when the second promise came that they may bring you to grief”: This suggests that the plural pronoun [“they”] refers to “Our servants” who were mentioned above [that is, the same group of attackers].
However this is just an impression of the verse, not a clear indication, for it could be that the return victory (karrah) refers to a group other than the Israelites who prevailed against their enemies, which also benefited the Israelites. It is also possible that the plural pronoun [“they” in ] refers to what is indicated by the context [not to “Our servants, of mighty prowess” in ], and the context does not necessarily indicate that those sent the second time were the same as those sent the first time.
The argument here is that according to verse , all of those who remain of the human race are Noah’s descendants. Yet, verse says that there are also descendants of others, namely Noah’s companions on the Ark. Hence, putting the two verses together, it is deduced that the descendants of others from the paternal side are also descendants of Noah from the maternal side. The other possibility is that they are all the descendants of Noah’s sons, who married the daughters of his companions on the Ark. (Trans.) ↩︎
The implied meaning would be: And We gave Moses—who was the offspring of those whom We bore with Noah—the Book and made it a guidance… (Trans.) ↩︎
In other words, the causing event or action is not explicitly mentioned, but its result is “that they may bring you to grief.” (Trans.) ↩︎
This is the omitted implied verb. (Trans.) ↩︎
The function of such a particle is that it turns the following verb into an infinitive. (Trans.) ↩︎
Hence, what is omitted is “period of” and the particle mā serves to convert “gained ascendancy” (verb) to “ascendancy” (as an infinitive). (Trans.) ↩︎
Tafsīr al-burhān, on the authority of Ibn Bābawayh, via his chain of narration, on the authority of Muḥammad b. Muslim. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Mardawayh, on the authority of Abū Fāṭimah. ↩︎
The change of the verse’s verbs to present or future tense is based on an alternative translation corresponding to future events. (Trans.) ↩︎
Tafsīr al-burhān, on the authority of Ibn Qūlawayh, via his chain of narration, on the authority of Ṣāliḥ b. Sahl. ↩︎
That is, they will follow exactly the same path just like the equivalence of two mates of a pair and the sameness of feathers on an arrow. These are Arabic expressions used to show equality and sameness. (Trans.) ↩︎
Titus was the son of Vespasian. (Trans.) ↩︎