Insights and Lessons from Az-Zamakhshari’s Al-Kashshaf on Al-Isra Verses 4–6

This is Imam Az-Zamakhshari on verses 4–6 of Surah Al-Isra:

﴾وَقَضَيۡنَاۤ إِلَىٰ بَنِیۤ إِسۡرَ ٰⁿءِیلَ فِی ٱلۡكِتَـٰبِ لَتُفۡسِدُنَّ فِی ٱلۡأَرۡضِ مَرَّتَيۡنِ وَلَتَعۡلُنَّ عُلُوࣰّا كَبِيرࣰا ۝ فَإِذَا جَاۤءَ وَعۡدُ أُولَىٰهُمَا بَعَثۡنَا عَلَيۡكُمۡ عِبَادࣰا لَّنَاۤ أُو۟لِی بَأۡسࣲ شَدِيدࣲ فَجَاسُوا۟ خِلَـٰلَ ٱلدِّيَارِۚ وَكَانَ وَعۡدࣰا مَّفۡعُولࣰا ۝ ثُمَّ رَدَدۡنَا لَكُمُ ٱلۡكَرَّةَ عَلَيۡهِمۡ وَأَمۡدَدۡنَـٰكُم بِأَمۡوَ ٰلࣲ وَبَنِينَ وَجَعَلۡنَـٰكُمۡ أَكۡثَرَ نَفِيرًا ۝﴿

“And We made known to the Children of Israel in the Scripture: ‘You will surely cause corruption on the earth twice, and you will surely commit great arrogance.’ So when the promise of the first of them came, We sent against you servants of Ours of great might, and they probed through the homes — and it was a fulfilled promise. Then We gave you the return [of victory] over them and supplied you with wealth and children and made you more numerous in fighting men.”

1. Qadayna ila Bani Isra’il — Definitive Revelation

Az-Zamakhshari’s foundational definition:

“‘And We made known (qadayna) to the Children of Israel’ — and We revealed to them a revelation that was definitively decided (wahyan maqdiyyan) — meaning: cut and final — that they would inevitably corrupt on the earth, and would elevate themselves — meaning: they would magnify themselves and behave wrongfully.**

‘In the Scripture’ — in the Torah.*

‘You will surely corrupt’ — this is the response to an omitted oath.*

And it is permissible that the definitively-decreed decree (al-qada’ al-mabtut) is treated like an oath — so that ‘you will surely corrupt’ is its response — as if He said: ‘And We have sworn that you will surely corrupt.’“*

Az-Zamakhshari frames this with maximum theological weight: the qada’ here is a definitive, irreversible revelation — and the verbal emphasis (latufsidunna with its lam and nun) treats it as a divine oath. Allah has sworn that this will happen.

KEY LESSONS:

• When Allah makes something qada’ mabtut (definitively decreed), it carries the weight of an oath. Not every divine statement is at the same level; some are decrees that Allah Himself elevates to oath-like certainty. When you encounter the emphatic lam + nun construction in the Qur’an, recognize it as carrying that maximum weight.

• Bani Isra’il were told in advance that their corruption was definitive — yet they were still responsible. This is the paradox Az-Zamakhshari sets up: Allah knew with certainty what they would do, and this knowledge did not eliminate their responsibility. Allah’s foreknowledge does not compel; it only knows. Live as a free moral agent — even while knowing that Allah’s knowledge encompasses everything you will choose.

2. The Variant Recitations

Az-Zamakhshari preserves two variant readings:

“And it is recited: latufsadunna — built for the passive.

And: latafsudunna — with fatha on the ta’, from fasada (intransitive, “to become corrupt”).”

You have already seen these three readings in Al-Alusi (who drew them from this source):

• Standard: latufsidunna (active — “you will cause corruption”)
• Passive: latufsadunna (“you will be corrupted [by others]”)
• Intransitive: latafsudunna (“you yourselves will become corrupt”)

KEY LESSON: Three modes of moral failure are simultaneously preserved in the multiple recitations. Read all three at once: a corrupted people causes further corruption, is corrupted by external forces, and is internally rotting. All three diagnostics apply to any people that loses its way. Audit your own community against all three.

3. The Two Corruptions — Az-Zamakhshari’s Identification

Az-Zamakhshari’s specific historical identification:

“‘Twice’ — the first of them: the killing of Zakariyya and the imprisonment of Irmiya (Jeremiah), when he warned them of Allah’s wrath.**

And the latter: the killing of Yahya ibn Zakariyya and the attempted killing of ‘Isa ibn Maryam.”

This is the original of the identification you saw in Al-Alusi (where Al-Alusi later noted Az-Zamakhshari’s chronological error in combining Zakariyya and Irmiya). Az-Zamakhshari’s reading pairs:

First corruption:

• Killing of Zakariyya
• Imprisonment of Irmiya (Jeremiah)

Second corruption:

• Killing of Yahya
• Attempted killing of ‘Isa

KEY LESSONS:

• The pattern of corruption is killing prophets and imprisoning warners. This is among the most striking features of Az-Zamakhshari’s reading — he identifies the corruption not with general sins but specifically with violence against Allah’s messengers. Killing Zakariyya, imprisoning Jeremiah, killing Yahya, attempting to kill ‘Isa. The deepest possible corruption is the rejection of those Allah sends to guide.

• Imprisoning a warner is named alongside killing prophets. This is a sharp point: imprisoning Irmiya (Jeremiah) is included in the same category as killing the others. Silencing a truthful messenger — even without killing him — is among the gravest corruptions. A community that imprisons its honest voices has begun the same descent that ends in killing prophets.

• Jeremiah was the warner who announced Allah’s wrath — and was imprisoned for it. The Old Testament book of Jeremiah preserves this story: Jeremiah warned of the coming Babylonian destruction and was imprisoned in a pit. The pattern of “shoot the messenger” is ancient — and is itself the sin that brings the messenger’s prophecy to fulfillment. When you imprison the warner, you confirm the warning.

4. ‘Ibadan Lana — The Recitation Variants and the Servants Identified

Az-Zamakhshari notes the variant:

“‘Servants of Ours’ — and it is recited: ‘abidan lana (‘slaves of Ours’).**

And most often it is said: ‘servants of Allah and slaves of people’ (‘ibad Allah wa ‘abid an-nas).”*

This is an important linguistic distinction:

• ‘Ibad (with kasrah) — typically used for servants of Allah (in the spiritual/creational sense)
• ‘Abid (with fatha) — typically used for slaves of humans (in the property sense)

By using ‘ibad in the verse, Allah signals that these invaders, though disbelievers, are His servants by creation. They are owned by Him — even though they do not worship Him.

Then Az-Zamakhshari identifies the invaders:

**“Sanhareeb and his armies.

And it is said: Bukhtnassar.

And from Ibn ‘Abbas: Jalut (Goliath).

They killed their scholars, burned the Torah, destroyed the Masjid (the Temple), and captured seventy thousand of them.”

The classical footnote clarifies (as you saw at-Tabari note):

“His saying ‘Sanhareeb and his armies’ — he was the king of Babylon, and Bukhtnassar was his grandson and was among his scribes.”

So three views are preserved: Sanhareeb, Bukhtnassar (his grandson), or Jalut (the much earlier figure from the time of Talut and Dawud).

KEY LESSONS:

• The disbelievers are still Allah’s ‘ibad by creation. Even those who fight against Allah’s people are owned by Allah. No power exists outside His sovereignty. When you face enemies — military, political, ideological — recognize that they are not outside Allah’s domain. They are ‘ibad by creation, even when they refuse to be ‘ibad by worship.

• The four specific crimes of the invaders: (1) killed scholars (‘ulama’); (2) burned the Torah; (3) destroyed the Masjid; (4) captured 70,000. Allah’s instruments of punishment often target the religious infrastructure of a corrupt people: their teachers, their scriptures, their houses of worship, their populace. The same pattern in every age of national catastrophe.

• Bukhtnassar was Sanhareeb’s grandson and scribe — meaning he literally served at the court of his grandfather before becoming the destructive king himself. The pattern of generational unfolding: the invader who would destroy Bani Isra’il in the final catastrophe was already serving in the court of an earlier conqueror. Divine plans unfold across generations.

5. The Theological Question — How Could Allah “Send” Disbelievers?

Az-Zamakhshari poses a question that defines the theological boundary between Mu’tazili and Sunni positions:

*“If you said: How could it be permissible that Allah sent the disbelievers against them and gave them dominion over [Bani Isra’il]?

I would say: Its meaning is: We left them alone with what they did, and We did not prevent them (khallayna baynahum wa bayna ma fa’alu wa lam namna’hum).

*Despite this, Allah Most Exalted attributed the sending of the disbelievers against them to Himself — and this is like His saying: ‘And likewise We give some wrongdoers authority over others for what they earn’ (Al-An’am 6:129); and like the supplication: ‘And differ between their words.’

And the attribution of the jaws (probing) — which is the going back and forth through the homes with corruption — to them: so the destruction of the Masjid and burning the Torah are among the jaws attributed to them.”

This is one of the most theologically loaded passages in classical tafsir — and the classical footnotes preserve the dispute that flows from it.

The classical footnotes openly note Az-Zamakhshari’s Mu’tazili theology and the Sunni response:

*Footnote 2: “His saying ‘If you said: How could it be permissible that Allah sent the disbelievers against [them]…’ is built upon [the Mu’tazili view] that Allah Most High does not do evil and does not will it — which is the doctrine of the Mu’tazilah. In the view of Ahl as-Sunnah, every existing thing is His act and His will — even if it is evil — so the question does not arise.”

Footnote 3: Ahmad [Ibn al-Munir, a Sunni scholar who critiqued Az-Zamakhshari] said: “This question is only directed at a Qadari (denier of decree) who, in his claim, makes it obligatory upon Allah to observe what he imagines through his reason to be a ‘maslahah’ (best interest).***

As for the Sunni — if asked this question, he answers it with His saying: ‘He is not questioned about what He does’ (Al-Anbiya 21:23). And Allah is the Granter of success.”

KEY LESSONS:

• The Mu’tazili-Sunni divide on this verse is a foundational moment in Islamic theology. Az-Zamakhshari, as a Mu’tazili, felt compelled to explain away Allah’s attribution of “sending” the disbelievers — interpreting it as “We left them alone, We did not prevent them.” His position was that Allah cannot directly will an act of disbelief or evil, so the verse must mean only that Allah permitted it.

• The Sunni position is more direct: Allah is the Creator of all things, including the actions of His servants — and His wisdom in creating what He creates is not subject to human questioning. Surah Al-Anbiya 21:23 — “He is not questioned about what He does, while they will be questioned” — is the foundational verse for the Sunni position. You can affirm divine sovereignty over all events without thereby justifying or approving of the evil acts of those who commit them. Allah creates; the doer is responsible.

• Az-Zamakhshari’s cross-reference is theologically rich — even if his framework is Mu’tazili. Al-An’am 6:129 — “And likewise We give some wrongdoers authority over others for what they earn” — is a profound principle. When a people earns corruption, Allah gives them other corruptors as their rulers. This is a Qur’anic spiritual law: the corruption inside a people summons the corruption that will dominate them from outside. Examine your own community: if you have unjust rulers, ask what your community has earned.

• The supplication mentioned — “And differ between their words” — refers to du’a against enemies, asking Allah to divide their unity. The point is that even causing disagreement among enemies is something we attribute to Allah’s action. Allah is the cause behind all causes — including the unity of friends and the division of enemies.

6. The Variant Recitations of Jasu

Az-Zamakhshari notes:

“Talha recited: fa-hasu with the ha’ (instead of jasu with the jim).

And it is recited: fa-jawwasu (with intensification).

‘Khalal ad-diyar’ — through the interior of the homes.”*

These variants preserve the same root meaning — moving through the homes searching and destroying — with different shadings:

• Jasu (standard) — “probed/searched through”
• Hasu (Talha’s reading) — “moved through” (same meaning, alternate root)
• Jawwasu (with intensification) — “thoroughly searched through”

KEY LESSON: The variant recitations all preserve the horror of systematic search and destruction. Whichever recitation you read, the meaning is: they did not just defeat — they hunted, room by room, through every home. The image is total devastation, not just military defeat.

7. Wa’d Ulahuma — The Promise of Punishment

Az-Zamakhshari clarifies:

“If you said: What is the meaning of ‘the promise of the first of them’?

I would say: Its meaning is: the promise of punishment of the first of them.

‘And it was a fulfilled promise’ — meaning: the promise of punishment was a promise that had to be fulfilled.”*

This is a sharp clarification. The wa’d (promise) here is not just any promise — it is specifically the promise of punishment (al-‘iqab). Allah had promised: if you corrupt, this is what comes. And when the corruption came, the promised punishment came too.

KEY LESSONS:

• The word wa’d (promise) in the Qur’an can refer specifically to promised punishment. Don’t read every wa’d as a promise of mercy or reward. Some of Allah’s promises are promises of consequence. When the Qur’an warns of an event and uses the word wa’d, recognize it as a promise that will be fulfilled — for good or for ill.

• Allah’s promise of punishment is inevitable once its conditions are met. Wa’dan maf’ula — “a promise that had to be fulfilled.” The conditional nature of the promise is the only mercy: as long as the conditions are not met (i.e., as long as the corruption is not committed), the promise of punishment is suspended. This is your continuing window: do not become the cause that fulfills the promise of punishment.

8. Thumma Radadna Lakum al-Karrata ‘Alayhim — The Return of Power

Az-Zamakhshari then comments on verse 6:

“‘Then We gave you the return over them’ — that is: the dominion and victory over those who were sent against you — when you repented and turned back from corruption and arrogance.**

It is said: this was the killing of Bukhtnassar and the rescue of Bani Isra’il’s captives and their wealth, and the return of their kingship.

And it is said: it was the killing of Jalut by Dawud.”

This is a critical theological point. The verse describes Bani Isra’il’s recovery — and Az-Zamakhshari emphasizes the condition: “when you repented and turned back from corruption and arrogance.” Allah did not give them the return automatically. The return came because they turned back.

Two historical possibilities are offered:

• Cyrus’s liberation of the Jews from Babylonian captivity (586–539 BCE), where the Persian king Cyrus released the captives and allowed them to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple.
• Dawud’s defeat of Jalut (Goliath) — an earlier event in Bani Isra’il’s history, where Talut’s army (with the young Dawud) defeated the Philistine army led by Jalut.

KEY LESSONS:

• The return of Allah’s favor is conditional on repentance. Az-Zamakhshari explicitly states: “when you repented and turned back from corruption and arrogance.” You do not get your power back by waiting — you get it back by changing. This is a foundational Qur’anic principle of national restoration: internal change precedes external restoration.

• Cyrus of Persia is named in Islamic tradition as the agent of Bani Isra’il’s first return. As you saw in the Hudhayfa hadith preserved by At-Tabari, Cyrus was identified as a believer who was inspired by Allah to rescue Bani Isra’il from Babylonian captivity. Allah’s instruments of mercy are sometimes from outside the community itself. The Persian king restored the Jews; the Jewish community of the time was not its own savior.

• The Qur’anic image of “the return” (al-karrah) is striking. Al-karrah means the turning back — the counter-attack. When Allah restores a people, the very pattern of their previous defeat is reversed. Those who probed through your homes will now flee from you. Those who burned your scripture will now respect it. Those who captured 70,000 of you will now release them. History is structured as a back-and-forth — and the believer who endures defeat with patience will see the karrah.

9. Amdadnakum bi-Amwalin wa-Banin — Wealth and Children

Az-Zamakhshari’s understanding of the restoration:

The verse continues: “And We supplied you with wealth and children.” Az-Zamakhshari does not elaborate extensively on this phrase in the fragment you’ve sent, but the pairing of amwal (wealth) and banin (children) is significant — these are the two foundational blessings of any community’s flourishing.

KEY LESSONS:

• Amwal (wealth) and banin (children) are the two pillars of communal restoration. Wealth without children means a generation with no future. Children without wealth means a generation with no means. Allah restored both simultaneously — recognizing that a community needs both to truly recover. Pray for both for your community: economic flourishing AND righteous children.

• The same pairing of amwal and banin appears across the Qur’an — sometimes as blessings, sometimes as trials, sometimes as warnings. Wealth and children are the two things that most easily either bring you to Allah or take you away from Him. Treat both as trusts, not as possessions.

10. Aktharu Nafira — More Numerous in Fighting Men

Az-Zamakhshari’s lexical note:

“‘More numerous in nafir’ — than what you were.**

An-nafir is the one who marches out (yanfiru) with a man from among his people.

And it is said: it is the plural of nafar — like ‘abid and ma’iz.”

So nafir has two possible meanings:

1. One who marches out with you — i.e., a fellow fighter, a comrade in war
2. A plural of nafar — meaning “a group of people who go together”

Either way, the verse promises that after their restoration, Bani Isra’il became more numerous in fighting capacity than they had been before their initial defeat.

KEY LESSONS:

• Allah does not just restore a defeated community — He restores it to greater strength than it had before. Aktharu nafira — “more numerous than you were.” This is among the most encouraging features of Qur’anic theology of restoration: when Allah brings a people back after their fall, He often brings them back greater than they were. Your tomorrow can be more abundant than your yesterday — even when your present feels like ruin.

• Real restoration includes military and demographic strength. This is Qur’anic realism. Spiritual restoration is foundational — but it is also accompanied by tangible blessings: numbers, fighting capacity, wealth. A truly restored community is visibly restored, not just spiritually flourishing in isolation.

The Master Lesson from Az-Zamakhshari on Verses 4–6

Az-Zamakhshari reveals the three-stage divine pattern that governs the history of nations:

🌙 Stage 1: The Prophecy. Allah informs the community in advance of what will happen if it corrupts. Qada’ mabtut — definitive revelation, like an oath. (Verse 4)

🌙 Stage 2: The Punishment. When the corruption occurs, Allah sends instruments of correction — even if those instruments are themselves disbelievers. Servants by creation are deployed for taslit (placing power over the corrupt). Wa’d maf’ul — a fulfilled promise of punishment. (Verse 5)

🌙 Stage 3: The Return. When the community repents and turns back, Allah restores its dominion, wealth, and numbers — often greater than before. (Verse 6)

The middle stage is non-negotiable. The third stage is conditional. The Babylonians were sent because of corruption; Bani Isra’il got their land back because they repented (in part), and the Persian king Cyrus was Allah’s instrument of restoration. The same pattern applies to every community.

Wa qadayna ila Bani Isra’il fi-l-Kitabi latufsidunna fi-l-ardi marratayn… Thumma radadna lakumu-l-karrata ‘alayhim wa amdadnakum bi-amwalin wa banin wa ja’alnakum akthara nafira.

“And We made known to the Children of Israel in the Scripture: ‘You will surely corrupt on the earth twice…’ Then We gave you the return of victory over them and supplied you with wealth and children and made you more numerous in fighting men.”

Allah’s pattern with His communities is a cycle: prophecy → corruption → punishment → repentance → restoration. The cycle is real, predictable, and operates in every age. The question for your ummah is which stage you are in. If you are in punishment, recognize what brought you there. If you are in restoration, recognize what to not return to. And in every stage, the way out is the same way that took you in: through your choices and your turning to Allah.

A Note on the Mu’tazili-Sunni Dispute

Before closing, a word about the theological dispute preserved in this passage.

Az-Zamakhshari, a Mu’tazili, could not accept that Allah would directly will the actions of the disbelieving Babylonians and Romans — so he interpreted Allah’s “sending” them as merely “leaving them alone” and “not preventing them.” For him, Allah’s holiness required that the act of corruption not be attributed to Him.

The Sunni response, preserved in the footnotes, is more austere: Allah is the Creator of all that exists — including the actions of His servants — and His wisdom in creating what He creates is not subject to human reasoning. La yus’al ‘amma yaf’al — “He is not questioned about what He does” (Al-Anbiya 21:23). The Sunni does not need to explain away the verse’s attribution of “sending” the disbelievers to Allah; the Sunni accepts that Allah does what He does, and His servants remain responsible for what they choose.

You have benefited from Az-Zamakhshari’s linguistic and rhetorical brilliance throughout these tafsirs — even while you’ve been alert to where his theology required correction. This is the barakah of the Islamic scholarly tradition: the major commentators read each other carefully, drew on each other’s insights, and refined each other’s positions. You can do the same in your own engagement with the tradition. Take the gold; refine away what doesn’t reflect the pure faith of the Salaf.