And when a messenger came to them from The God, confirming what was with them, a group of those who had been given the Book cast The God’s Book behind their backs, as though they do not know.
The covenant cast aside in the preceding verse now leads us to the very source of that covenant: The God’s Book. The same word, “casting aside” (nabdh), appears again: throwing away something no longer regarded as having the value and authority it should.
“A group of those who had been given the Book cast The God’s Book behind their backs.”
This time, the Qur’an does not identify them by the ethnic name “Children of Israel.” Instead, it emphasizes their relationship with the Book: “those who had been given the Book.” The same People of the Book are being addressed within the same historical context, but the focus of the criticism is no longer race or ancestry. The question is what those who possessed scripture did with the trust they had been given.
This change of expression carries the verse’s warning beyond the boundaries of one people. Any community that considers itself the possessor of divine scripture can fall into the same error. Muslims, too, have received a Book, and merely possessing the Qur’an does not make them immune to the danger of casting it behind their backs.
The episode becomes more bitter when we see that the messenger had not brought something entirely foreign:
“Confirming what was with them.”
The problem, then, was neither a lack of scripture nor complete unfamiliarity with truth. A messenger had come from The God, confirming the truth that they themselves possessed. Yet a group of those who possessed scripture cast that very Book behind their backs instead of making it their criterion.
Casting the Book behind one’s back does not always mean burning it, tearing it apart, or verbally denying it. A religious community can wrap its Book in silk, recite it in the most beautiful voices, and passionately defend its sanctity, yet leave it behind when the time comes to act.
The tragedy occurs when the Book that should guide us gives way to human constructions. If the Qur’an recognizes freedom of religion but our system of jurisprudence legitimizes coercion, or if the Qur’an establishes the sanctity of human life and limits on taking it but we construct an authority above the Book to justify taking a life, the same logic of casting the Book behind our backs has been repeated.
In such a situation, the Book has not disappeared; its position has changed. The text that should stand before us and show the way is placed behind us, while jurisprudence, reports, tradition, power, or inherited belief takes its place as the criterion. Then, instead of measuring our inheritance against the Book, we restrict and reinterpret the Book until it conforms to that inheritance.
“As though they do not know.”
The Qur’an does not say that they truly had no knowledge. They possessed scripture, and a messenger had also come confirming the truth already with them. The problem was that, in practice, they behaved as though they knew nothing. Knowledge can remain in the mind yet be set aside at the moment of decision so completely that no trace of it appears in conduct.
This may be the most dangerous form of disregard for the Book: not open denial, but maintaining an appearance of respect while setting aside its authority.
The measure of religious commitment is not which Book we hold in our hands. It is which we place before us and which we put behind us when the truth of the Book conflicts with our inheritance, our interests, and our cherished beliefs.