Surah Al-Baqara (2) — Ayah 258

(Ayah 258) ➊ { اَنْ اٰتٰىهُ اللّٰهُ الْمُلْكَ :} That is, the reason for the dispute of that king with Ibrahim (peace be upon him) regarding the Lord Almighty was that Allah had granted him kingship, and in return for this blessing, he himself claimed to be lord and denied the One who had granted him kingship. If Allah had made him poor, he would never have dared to do so.

➋ Ibrahim (peace be upon him) was a resident of Iraq. In his time, almost all forms of polytheism existed in Iraq; they worshipped idols, the sun, the moon, and the stars, and along with these, they also considered the king of the time as lord. It was the duty of Ibrahim (peace be upon him) to refute all these forms and invite people to worship the One Lord alone. Accordingly, he invited his father and his people to abandon idol worship and worship the One Lord. As a result, he had to leave his home. Then, in a most wise manner, he made it so clear that the sun, moon, and stars are not lords that his people were left speechless. (See An'am: 76 to 82) As a result, he faced disputes from his people and threats of being targeted by the wrath of the sun, moon, and stars. When Ibrahim (peace be upon him) realized that mere advice would not make them admit the helplessness of the idols, on the day of the festival, he broke all the idols except the biggest one. An investigation was held, and Ibrahim (peace be upon him) was declared guilty. On this occasion, he made the helplessness of the idols so clear before the whole nation that they admitted in their hearts that they themselves were the wrongdoers, and Ibrahim (peace be upon him) was not at fault. Instead of accepting the truth, they said the opposite: burn him and help your gods. (See Anbiya: 51 to 70) Now, obviously, no matter how many the public are, it is the job of the government to punish someone, so he was presented before the king of the time. He tolerated idol worship and star worship in his kingdom, in fact, he supported it, because he himself was a polytheist and also claimed to be lord. On this occasion, this debate took place with the king, in which, being left speechless, he had Ibrahim (peace be upon him) thrown into the fire.

➌ This incident and the two following incidents are examples and evidence of how Allah brings His friends from darkness to light, and how the Taghut bring their friends from light to darkness.

➍ When Ibrahim (peace be upon him) denied the king's claim of being lord, he asked: "Who is your Lord?" He replied: "My Lord is the One who gives life and causes death." He said: "I give life and cause death." It is narrated from some Tabi'in that he called for two prisoners, killed one, and let the other go, and said: "See! Keeping them alive or killing them is in my hands." The statement of the Tabi'in can only be an Israelite narration because they themselves were not present at that time, and such a need arises only when the king is pious and always speaks the truth. If a liar says something wrong, what is the need to justify it with interpretation? The one who can claim to be lord, what can prevent him from claiming that he alone gives life and causes death? Some commentators have written that when Ibrahim (peace be upon him) saw that he was being obstinate, he left the first argument and gave the second argument about the sun, but in reality, Ibrahim (peace be upon him) did not leave the first argument; rather, through it, he made him admit his claim that he gives life and causes death. Now, on this claim, he based the second argument: if you have so much power that you create everyone and cause death, then do a simple thing in comparison: Allah brings the sun from the east, if all authority is with you, then bring the sun from the west. At this, the disbeliever was astonished and completely speechless, and Allah does not grant guidance to such wrongdoers.

➎ The stories of a mosquito entering Nimrod's nose and him having himself beaten with hammers for four hundred years are neither narrated from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) nor from any companion.

The exegesis of this verse has been done along with the previous verse.

258. Have you not considered the case of the one [368] who argued with Abraham about his Lord, because Allah had granted him kingship? When Abraham said, "My Lord is the One Who gives life and causes death," he replied, "I too give life and cause death." [369] Abraham said, "Indeed, Allah brings the sun from the east, so bring it from the west." Thus, the disbeliever was confounded. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people [370].

[368]
What Kind of Divinity Did Nimrod Claim?

This person, Nimrod, was the king of Iraq and his capital was Babylon, where present-day Kufa is located. He claimed divinity. He himself and his subjects were all polytheists. What kind of divinity did Nimrod claim? To understand this, a little detail seems necessary. There are three types of shirk (polytheism):

Types of Shirk: Shirk in Lordship:

Such shirk is generally not committed by anyone. Whether it is the polytheists of Makkah, Nimrod, or Pharaoh, if any of them are asked: Who created the heavens and the earth? Who causes produce to grow from the earth? Who created the universe and who runs the system of the sun and the moon? They will all answer that it is Allah, the Exalted. However, deniers of Lordship have certainly existed, i.e., people of the materialist type or astronomers who consider the entire universe to be transformed forms of matter and the result of evolutionary production. The second type is shirk in attributes. This too has two further types: one is related to supernatural causes, for example, hearing prayers and accepting them, fulfilling needs and removing difficulties, causing constriction or expansion in someone’s sustenance, sending rain, granting children, etc. Such shirk is commonly found. Whether among the polytheists of Makkah, Iraq, Egypt, or India, they had created countless goddesses or gods for such tasks, and the above-mentioned tasks were assigned to them, and their idols and images were worshipped. This type of shirk is also commonly found among us Muslims. The only difference is that we have assigned these matters to our saints, ascetics, and those whom we consider to be friends of Allah, whether they are alive or have passed away. Which type of shirk is found in democracy? The third type of shirk is the one related to the second type of shirk in attributes, and that is through natural causes. In other words, it is through taghut or tawaghit, which was mentioned in the previous verse, who, in opposition to Allah, have their sovereignty accepted. In today’s language, this is called “sovereignty.” Nimrod was also this type of god, and so was Pharaoh, and many others like them have made and are making claims to divinity. Then, even sovereignty has two types: legal sovereignty and political sovereignty. Both types of sovereignty are only with such rulers. Every word of such people is law, and no one dares to speak against their command. In those countries where democracy is prevalent today, this type of shirk is also often found, because in these countries, political sovereignty is with the people, i.e., the source of power is the people. They can, by their vote, make anyone their representative or ruler, and legal sovereignty is with the assembly or parliament. (It should be kept in mind that in democracy, sovereignty is with the assembly or parliament. In democracy, sovereignty can only be with a human or an institution.) Whereas from the Islamic point of view, neither legal nor political sovereignty can be with any individual or institution. Such sovereignty belongs only to Allah, the Exalted. In democratic countries, even the highest court cannot stand against the law made by parliament. In this respect, there is no difference between the divinity of Nimrod and the divinity of democracy.

Introduction of Azar:

In the very court of Nimrod, the father of Prophet Ibrahimؑ was the royal priest, who was also an idol-maker and idol-seller, and was among the close associates of Nimrod. On this basis, the father expelled Prophet Ibrahimؑ from the house, and when Prophet Ibrahimؑ broke their idols, it was this father who presented his son’s case in the court of Nimrod.

[369]
The Dialogue Between Sayyiduna Ibrahim and Nimrod:

When the case was presented in court, the issue under discussion was “divinity” itself. During the debate, Prophet Ibrahimؑ said that my Lord is the One who gives life and causes death. Nimrod replied that I can do both these things as well. Accordingly, he had an innocent man killed without reason and set free a prisoner who had been sentenced to death.

[370] Prophet Ibrahimؑ could have replied to Nimrod’s action by saying: Bring back to life the one whom you have killed, then we will see. But Prophet Ibrahimؑ left that field and moved to the field of Lordship, saying: My Lord brings out the sun from the east, so bring it out from the west. Now, since Nimrod understood that he had no role or authority in the system of the universe, he was immediately left speechless. Although, if he had thought, he could have said: If I cannot bring out the sun from the west, then ask your Lord to bring it out from the west and show us. And in that case, it is quite possible that Allah, the Exalted, might have shown such a miracle. But since Nimrod had a firm belief that the system of the universe is run by Allah alone, and if He wills, He can do so, therefore, except for silence and astonishment, he could do nothing. In this way, Ibrahimؑ made it clear to Nimrod in the full court that my God is not you, but the true God is the One who has authority and control over the entire universe. Despite being left speechless in this debate, Nimrod was not willing at any cost to give up his claim to divinity or to pay attention to the guidance of Prophet Ibrahimؑ, and those who have advanced to such an extent in misguidance are not granted the path of guidance.