ۖ
So woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, then say: This is from The God (Allah), to obtain a small price through it. So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they gain.
Verse 79 directly continues a chain that began several verses earlier. Verse 75 spoke of a group who heard the word of The God, grasped its meaning through reason, and then knowingly distorted it. Verse 76 showed anxiety about the disclosure of what The God had opened. Verse 78 spoke of people who did not know the Book themselves, whose understanding of it went no further than recitations and wishful notions (amani) and supposition (zann). Now verse 79 turns to people who write something themselves and then attribute it to The God.
This connection matters greatly. A religious community is not harmed only by knowledgeable distorters, nor does it go astray only because some people do not know the Book. The danger deepens when people produce religious statements and a public unfamiliar with the Book accepts those statements as the word of The God. Verse 78 showed people without knowledge of the Book; verse 79 now shows that, in that same setting, others can produce material for religious beliefs and place a divine stamp upon it.
The verse begins with a declaration of woe (wayl). Here this is a severe warning: an announcement of a disastrous end for an act that the Qur'an treats as extremely grave. This same word occurs three times in the verse. There is no need to construct a new ranking of sins from that repetition, but the repetition itself shows that the Qur'an wants us to pause over the severity of the danger: once at the beginning, once concerning what they have written, and a third time concerning what they gain from it.
It then speaks of those who write the Book with their own hands. Writing is naturally done by hand, yet the Qur'an adds this emphasis on their own hands. It attributes the act directly to them and closes off any escape from responsibility: the writing they later attribute to The God is their own production. The Qur'an does not allow a distance to be created between the author of this statement and responsibility for it.
Here a profound contrast emerges: their own hands write it, but their tongues say it is from The God.
Writing itself is not a crime. A person can write a book, interpret, express an opinion, propose a law, record history, and think about religion. The problem begins with the next statement:
Then they say: This is from The God.
They then claim that it comes from The God.
Here the boundary between human speech and the word of The God is erased. A statement of human origin is presented as having divine origin. The author no longer says, “This is my understanding,” “This is the result of my interpretive reasoning,” or “This is a report that has reached us.” Instead, the claim is: This is from The God.
It is this attribution that takes the verse far beyond a simple discussion of errors in scholarship. A person may misunderstand religion and still be sincere. Someone may understand a verse incorrectly and later revise their view. An interpreter or jurist may, through interpretive reasoning, reach a conclusion that another does not accept. But when someone attributes their own statement to The God, a different responsibility begins. They are no longer merely expressing a human opinion; they have fabricated a statement for The God.
Elsewhere the Qur'an also firmly maintains this boundary: do not declare things permitted or forbidden on the basis of the falsehood your tongues describe, thereby fabricating a lie against The God. This verse shows that attributing a human ruling to The God goes beyond disagreement: it is speaking on behalf of The God without knowledge.
Verse 79 then identifies a motive: to obtain a small price through it.
A price (thaman) is what is received in exchange for something. Here the Qur'an does not identify exactly what that price was, so we should not limit it to one particular historical benefit. Money can be one instance, but benefit can take other forms: position, influence, power, security, religious standing, or the advantage someone gains when their statement is accepted. These are possible instances; the verse itself says only that a statement attributed to The God has become a means of obtaining a price.
And the Qur'an calls that price small (qalil).
Its smallness does not necessarily mean that it is insignificant in worldly terms. Someone may obtain great wealth, influence, or power in exchange for trading away religion. But in the Qur'an's measure, whatever is received in return for falsely attributing a statement to The God is little. What the person sells is far greater than what they gain.
Here a persistent illness in religion becomes visible: a person can exploit people's need for certainty, their reverence for The God, and their unfamiliarity with the Book. If people accept a statement solely because they are told that The God said it, attributing statements to The God acquires enormous power. For this reason, the boundary between “The God has said” and “This is how I have understood it” must remain very clear.
Following verse 78, this verse gains further weight. There were people who did not know the Book and lived by recitations and wishful notions (amani) and supposition (zann). Now there are people who produce statements and attribute them to The God. These two conditions can reinforce one another: people unfamiliar with the Book more readily accept something presented in the name of The God, while those who want to give their own statements religious authority profit from that unfamiliarity.
But this history must not become a means of mocking the Children of Israel. The Qur'an also places this account before later readers. If the problem concerned only a group in the past, its warning would have no effect on someone reading the Qur'an today. An error that occurred in one religious community can recur in another.
Elsewhere the Qur'an itself speaks of distorting words from their proper places. This expression helps us recognize a broader family of this illness. Distortion does not always mean erasing letters or physically rearranging words. A statement can remain while being removed from its proper position, context, direction, and function.
A verse may be detached from its context and assigned a meaning that does not follow from the passage as a whole. Half a verse may be quoted while a qualification or continuation that clarifies its direction is set aside. A limited ruling may be made general. A word may be read through a technical meaning that arose centuries later, and that later meaning projected back onto Qur'anic language. The Qur'an's silence may be filled with stories it never tells, and those stories may then become part of religion in people's minds. All of these can be forms of removing speech from its proper place.
Ali 'Imran 3:78 provides a very close example: a group twists their tongues with the Book so that people imagine what they say belongs to the Book, although it does not, and they say it is from The God although it is not. In different words, this verse clarifies almost the same boundary seen in 2:79: something human is presented in such a way that the listener imagines it to be divine.
From here we can understand why the danger does not end after the revelation of the Qur'an. If someone presents a statement as their personal interpretation, the boundary is still maintained. But if a human interpretation becomes a supposedly certain ruling of The God; if a historical or transmitted report carrying some degree of probability is presented so that people regard it as equal to the word of The God; if narratives associated with earlier Jewish and Christian traditions (Isra'iliyyat) are introduced to fill the Qur'an's silences and later generations imagine them to be part of revelation; or if a system of human rulings hides behind the name of The God, the same Qur'anic warning can be heard again.
This does not mean that every interpretation, narration, body of jurisprudence, or historical report is false. The verse says no such thing. The problem is not that a person reads something other than the Qur'an or expresses an opinion about religion. The problem is that the status of human speech is changed, and something that is not from The God is presented as being from Him.
The same boundary must be maintained when dealing with later narrations. A historical report can be valuable, a narration may preserve information about the past, and a scholar's statement may reflect years of study. But none of these automatically becomes the word of The God merely because the transmitter or scholar is respected. If something is not certainly true, its actual degree of reliability must be preserved. Supposition must not be turned into knowledge and then used to fabricate rulings for The God.
The danger of narratives associated with earlier Jewish and Christian traditions (Isra'iliyyat) becomes clear within this same framework. Sometimes the Qur'an does not give the details of a story. If a person fills that silence with an outside narration and explicitly identifies it as merely a historical report, the boundary remains clear. But if later generations forget that those details did not come from the Qur'an and read them as divine truth, outside speech has taken the place of the word of The God.
This verse also warns us that trading away religion does not always involve direct payment. A small price can be any benefit a person receives in return for misusing the name of The God. Sometimes it is political power. Sometimes it is social position. Sometimes it is preserving the standing of a religious class. Sometimes it is popularity and followers. Sometimes a person does not want to admit that an earlier interpretation was wrong because their reputation rests on that interpretation. The Qur'an does not name all these instances, but it makes the principle clear: a statement attributed to The God has become a means of gain.
The ending of the verse is also precise:
So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they gain.
Woe to them for what their own hands have written, and woe to them for what they obtain.
Here two things are distinguished. First, the writing itself brings responsibility. Second, what results from that writing also brings responsibility. A person is not accountable only for the moment in which they write a sentence. The writing can enter society, shape beliefs, generate rulings, influence people's lives, and create benefits for the author or the institution behind it.
This is especially grave in the case of religious speech. A personal error may end with the person who holds it, but when that same error is written and published in the name of The God, later generations may repeat it. People may live by it for years, condemn others, regard the permitted as forbidden or the forbidden as permitted, and even imagine that throughout this time they are obeying The God.
The statement about what their hands have written therefore concerns more than ink on a page: it concerns responsibility for what they themselves have produced. The statement about what they gain directs attention to its yield and consequences.
Here readers of the Qur'an must turn from history toward themselves. The central question is not what earlier people did, but how we have maintained the boundary between the word of The God and human speech. An interpreter's opinion, however learned, remains the interpreter's opinion. A ruling derived by a jurist does not have the same standing as the clear text of the Qur'an. A narration attributed to the Prophet must be recognized with its actual degree of historical reliability and cannot restrict the Qur'an merely by being attributed to him. And where the Qur'an is silent, narration, legend, or conjecture must not fill that silence in such a way that the next generation imagines that The God Himself stated those details.
These are questions the verse allows us to raise, because the Qur'anic principle is clear: human beings have no right to attribute to The God what they have produced themselves or received from other human beings.
The Qur'an does not even allow respect for religion to become an excuse for blurring this boundary. If something comes from the Qur'an, it must be shown to come from the Qur'an. If it is our understanding, it must remain identified as our understanding. If it is a historical report, it must be called a historical report. If it is conjectural, it must not be called certain.
Perhaps one of the most important religious trusts is precisely this: attribute the word of The God to Him, and human speech to human beings.
When this boundary disappears, distortion occurs not only in the meaning of words, but also in the attribution of their source. Human speech takes on a divine appearance, and people then bow before it as though it were a command of The God, instead of treating it as an opinion open to examination.
Verse 79 warns of this danger in the strongest language: your own hands wrote it; why do you say it is from The God?
And why?
To obtain a small price through it: to receive something in exchange.
The issue is therefore not merely an error in scholarship. In this verse, knowledge, religion, and self-interest become intertwined. When self-interest enters into attributing speech to The God, a person may not only fail to see the truth, but also profit from its remaining unseen.
For this reason, woe (wayl) resounds three times in the verse: woe for this act, woe for the writing their hands have produced, and woe for what they gain from it.
This warning first concerned a group among earlier people, but the Qur'an has preserved it for us so that we do not follow the same path again. Their history is a mirror, not a means of mockery.
The lesson of the verse is clear: no individual, scholar, jurist, interpreter, transmitter, government, or religious institution has the right to use the name of The God to place its own statements beyond question. If a statement is from The God, it must truly be from Him; and if it is human, it must honestly remain identified as human speech.