Tafsir of Surah Al-Baqarah - Verse 258

The Debate Between Ibrahim Al-Khalil and King Nimrod

The king who disputed with Ibrahim was King Nimrod, son of Canaan, son of Kush, son of Sam, son of Noah, as Mujahid stated. It was also said that he was Nimrod, son of Falikh, son of `Abir, son of Shalikh, son of Arfakhshand, son of Sam, son of Noah. Mujahid said, "The kings who ruled the eastern and western parts of the world are four, two believers and two disbelievers. As for the two believing kings, they were Sulayman bin Dawud and Dhul-Qarnayn. As for the two disbelieving kings, they were Nimrod and Nebuchadnezzar." Allah knows best.

Allah said,

أَلَمْ تَرَ

(Have you not looked) meaning, "With your heart, O Muhammad!"

إِلَى الَّذِى حَآجَّ إِبْرَهِيمَ فِى رِبِّهِ

(at him who disputed with Ibrahim about his Lord) meaning, about the existence of Allah. Nimrod denied the existence of a god other than himself, as he claimed, just as Fir`awn said later to his people,

مَا عَلِمْتُ لَكُمْ مِّنْ إِلَـهٍ غَيْرِى

(I know not that you have a god other than me) 28:38.

What made Nimrod commit this transgression, utter disbelief and arrant rebellion was his tyranny and the fact that he ruled for a long time. This is why the Ayah continued,

أَنْ آتَـهُ اللَّهُ الْمُلْكَ

(Because Allah had given him the kingdom. )

It appears that Nimrod asked Ibrahim to produce proof that Allah exists. Ibrahim replied,

رَبِّيَ الَّذِى يُحْىِ وَيُمِيتُ

(My Lord is He Who gives life and causes death) meaning, "The proof of Allah's existence is the creations that exist after they were nothing and perish after they had existed. This only proves the existence of the Creator, Who does what He wills, for these things could not have occurred on their own without a Creator who created them, and He is the Lord that I call to for worship, Alone without a partner."

This is when Nimrod said,

أَنَا أُحْىِ وَأُمِيتُ

(I give life and cause death.)

Qatadah, Muhammad bin Ishaq and As-Suddi said that he meant, "Two men who deserved execution were to be brought before me, and I would command that one of them be killed, and he would be killed. I would command that the second man be pardoned, and he would be pardoned. This is how I bring life and death." However, it appears that since Nimrod did not deny the existence of a Creator, his statement did not mean what Qatadah said it meant. This explanation does not provide an answer to what Ibrahim said. Nimrod arrogantly and defiantly claimed that he was the creator and pretended that it was he who brings life and death. Later on, Fir`awn imitated him and announced,

مَا عَلِمْتُ لَكُمْ مِّنْ إِلَـهٍ غَيْرِى

(I know not that you have a god other than me) 28: 38.

This is why Ibrahim said to Nimrod,

فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْتِى بِالشَّمْسِ مِنَ الْمَشْرِقِ فَأْتِ بِهَا مِنَ الْمَغْرِبِ

(Verily, Allah brings the sun from the east; then bring it you from the west.)

This Ayah means, "You claim that it is you who brings life and death. He who brings life and death controls the existence and creates whatever is in it, including controlling its planets and their movements. For instance, the sun rises everyday from the east. Therefore, if you were god, as you claimed, bringing life and death, then bring the sun from the west." Since the king was aware of his weakness, inadequacy and that he was not able to reply to Ibrahim's request, he was idle, silent and unable to comment. Therefore, the proof was established against him. Allah said,

وَاللَّهُ لاَ يَهْدِى الْقَوْمَ الظَّـلِمِينَ

(And Allah guides not the people, who are wrongdoers) meaning, Allah deprives the unjust people of any valid proof or argument. Furthermore, their false proof and arguments are annulled by their Lord, and they have earned His anger and will suffer severe torment.

The meaning that we provided is better than the meaning that some philosophers offered, claiming that Ibrahim used the second argument because it was clearer than the first one. Rather, our explanation asserts that Ibrahim refuted both claims of Nimrod, all praise is due to Allah.

As-Suddi stated that the debate between Ibrahim and Nimrod occurred after Ibrahim was thrown in the fire, for Ibrahim did not meet the king before that day.

The verse refers to Namrud نمرود ، the emperor of Babylon, who denied the very existence of God and had a debate with Sayyidna Ibrahim (علیہ السلام) on this issue. Allah has given him political power over a large territory. He should have been grateful to his Lord. But, on the contrary, his political power inflated him with pride and arrogance; he started denying the very existence of Him. It is in this context that the Holy Qur'an says: 'the one who argued with Ibrahim about his Lord, because Allah had given him kingship."

In the course of argument, he asked Ibrahim (علیہ السلام) about the basic attributes of God. He replied, "My Lord is the One who gives life and brings death." The foolish king did not understand the real nature of 'giving life' and 'bringing death.' Therefore, he argued that he, too, can kill anyone through his order and bring thereby death to him and can also let off a person sentenced to death and give thereby life to him. Obviously, his argument was totally absurd, because 'giving life' means to give life to something lifeless56.

56\. And 'bringing death' means power which may remove the life from every living creature without a necessary intervention of an apparent cause.

When Sayyidna Ibrahim (علیہ السلام) felt that his addressee is unable to understand the real nature of 'giving life' and 'bringing death,' he switched over to another argument and said, "Allah brings the sun out from the East, now, you bring it out from the West." Here the king was baffled and could not answer the Abrahimic argument. But even after the truth became clear to him, he did not accept the guidance. Hence the Qur'anic statement: "And Allah does not put the unjust people on the right path."

Injunctions and related considerations

1\. It is evident from the words used in the verse that if an infidel is given political power or a high worldly status, there is no harm (for a Muslim) in referring to him as a holder of that position (Qurtubi).

2\. The verse also affirms the permissibility of having debate with such an infidel in order to manifest the difference between right and wrong.

3\. Some people doubt the validity of the last argument of Sayyidna Ibrahim (علیہ السلام) ، because Namrud نمرود could have refuted it by a counter demand from Ibrahim (علیہ السلام) and could have said, "If there is a God, let Him bring the sun out from the West."

But it is obvious that he could not come out with this counter-demand. The reason is that as soon as he heard the argument, he came to the conclusion that (he himself or anybody else cannot bring out the sun from the East or the West and) it is surely a divine function which proves the existence of God. And once it is proved that it is God who brings the sun out from the East, it necessarily follows from it that He has the power to bring it out from the West also. The king also came to the conclusion that Ibrahim (علیہ السلام) ، ac is the messenger of Allah, and if the prayed Allah to bring out the sun from the. West, Allah will do it, in which case such a miraculous event may bring a revolution against him and he may be deprived of his kingdom. Therefore, he did not make such a demand and having no other answer, was baffled with the argument. (Bayin al-Qur'an)

In the modern age, the right to govern a people is secured by popular support. However, that was not the case in pre-democratic times, when kings sanctioned their rule over their subjects by laying claim to being some kind of divine incarnation. Nimrod, a king of ancient Iraq, was a case in point. A contemporary of Abraham, he was one of those monarchs who used this method to back up his right of sovereignty over the people. The sun was believed by his people to be the Chief of the gods and was thus revered by them as an object of worship. Nimrod claimed that he was an incarnation of the sun-god, a position which gave him a divine right to worldly sovereignty. When Abraham preached the message of the One God in the land of Iraq, his teachings had no direct connection with politics or government in the country. All he did was to impress upon the people that there was but One God; He was their sole Lord and Master. There were no partners with Him in the godhead, so mankind should worship Him alone, fearing Him and placing their hopes in Him. Though Abraham’s message was apolitical, it nevertheless appeared to Nimrod as a threat to his political claims, for according to the message taught by Abraham, even the sun was part of God’s creation. It had no power of its own, but was controlled by God Almighty. Had his subjects accepted Abraham’s message of the One God, it would have amounted to demolishing the theological base on which the edifice of his political power rested. It was for this reason that Nimrod turned vehemently against Abraham and his teachings. The dialogue conducted between Abraham and Nimrod shows us the method adopted by the prophets in the communication of their message. First of all, Abraham pointed out that his Lord had control over life and death. Immediately, Nimrod disputed this, claiming himself to have power over life and death. Abraham, of course, could have answered this claim made by Nimrod, but he did not want the conversation to deteriorate into a heated polemical discussion. So, instead of persisting with this point, he changed the subject and chose another example, one with which Nimrod would not be able to argue. Abraham did not consider Nimrod his enemy or rival. Rather, he had compassion for him as a madu‘ (addressee) and earnestly wished to communicate to him the message of Truth. It was this compassion which showed Abraham the correct method to be adopted in addressing the Iraqi king. Since the present world is a place where man is being tested, there are always different options open to everyone. This causes people to construe situations in different ways. For instance, should one be endowed with worldly wealth and power, one may consider these to be a personal success, the outcome of one’s own talent. One may, on the other hand, look at them purely as blessings from God. The former way of seeing things amounts to grave injustice, while the latter shows a grateful disposition. For one who is thankless in his outlook, everything in this world will only serve to lead him further astray. Everything he experiences will only add to his pride and conceit. But for those who are grateful for what they have been given, everything they experience in this world leads them closer to God. The world, and all that it contains, serves to stimulate their faith in God.