وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ أَقَامُوا۟ ٱلتَّوْرَىٰةَ وَٱلْإِنجِيلَ وَمَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْهِم مِّن رَّبِّهِمْ لَأَكَلُوا۟ مِن فَوْقِهِمْ وَمِن تَحْتِ أَرْجُلِهِم
"Had they kept up the Torah, the Gospel and what was sent down to them from their Lord, they would have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet."
Iqāma (ق-و-م): to set upright, to keep standing. When it is used of a book the lexicographers explain it as "to apply it giving it its due, to keep it standing without bending it". That is, it does not say to read the book but to keep it standing.
La-akalū min fawqihim wa min taḥti arjulihim — "they would have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet".
The exegetes generally explain this phrase as rain from the sky, plants from the earth — that is, the two sources of provision.
I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the verse gives as the return for keeping up the Book not an inward outcome but material abundance. The same link was treated at al-Aʿrāf 7/96 (la-fataḥnā ʿalayhim barakātin mina's-samāʾi wa'l-arḍ) and at Nūḥ 71/10-12; I rely on that treatment.
The root ق-ص-د: to aim at what is right, to keep measure, not to go to excess. Qaṣd — both intention and the middle way.
And this phrase forms the counterpart to the kathīrun minhum qualifications repeated in this part of the sūra.
| Minhum ummatun muqtaṣida | Some of them are measured |
|---|---|
| Wa kathīrun minhum sāʾa mā yaʿmalūn | What many of them do is evil |
The two sentences are inside the same verse. This is one of the plainest textual grounds for the prohibition of blanket verdicts in Method, and it should be recorded.
And the conditional sentence should be recorded: wa in lam tafʿal fa-mā ballaghta risālatah — "if you do not, you will not have conveyed His message".
I record this as an observation about the language: the sentence counts leaving a part undone as leaving the whole undone — a partial delivery does not count as delivery.
وَٱللَّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ ٱلنَّاسِ — ʿiṣma (ع-ص-م): to hold fast, to protect. The root was treated at Hūd 11/43 (lā ʿāṣima'l-yawma min amri'llāh).
There are various reports in the classical sources about the occasion of this verse's revelation; no preference among the reports is adopted in this commentary.
5/68-69 — قُلْ يَٰٓأَهْلَ ٱلْكِتَٰبِ لَسْتُمْ عَلَىٰ شَىْءٍ حَتَّىٰ تُقِيمُوا۟ ٱلتَّوْرَىٰةَ وَٱلْإِنجِيلَ وَمَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكُم مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ
And the same verb (tuqīmū) for the second time within three verses. The measure does not change: whether what is in hand is kept standing.
إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ وَٱلَّذِينَ هَادُوا۟ وَٱلصَّٰبِـُٔونَ وَٱلنَّصَٰرَىٰ مَنْ ءَامَنَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلْءَاخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَٰلِحًا فَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ (69)
The structure of the sentence should be recorded here: four communities are named by name, and then the ruling is tied not to a name but to the condition man āmana … wa ʿamila ṣāliḥā. That is, the names enumerated are not the subject of the ruling; they are named in order to show how wide its scope is.
The exegetes differ on the scope of this verse; no preference is adopted, and no ruling is issued in this commentary as to who will be saved and who will not. This is a deliberate limit, per the method (Method).
Note: on the case of the word al-ṣābiʾūn here there is a detailed discussion in the books of grammar (the reason for its coming in the nominative). The matter is at the level of language, and no preference is adopted here.