"Perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you": what Al-Baqarah 2:216 says
The verse read in the ruling it was given for, why it says "perhaps" and says it twice, how al-Muyassar, as-Safi and al-Mizan each answer that, and the one other place the phrase occurs.
A line reached for at funerals, after bad news, and on the worst days — and almost never read in the verse it belongs to:
Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.
Quoted by itself, the famous middle clause sounds like consolation in general. In place, it is the reason attached to a heavy ruling, and it is phrased with a word that repays attention.
This site serves three commentaries. The Sunni reading below is al-Tafsir al-Muyassar, from the King Fahd Complex. The Shia reading is Tafsir as-Safi by al-Fayd al-Kashani and Tafsir al-Mizan by al-Tabataba'i. All three are Arabic; the renderings into English are mine.
The shape of the verse
Four movements, in order: fighting is prescribed for you; it is hateful to you; perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you, and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you; and God knows while you do not.
So the consoling clause is not a standalone maxim. It is the justification offered for a command the people receiving it did not want.
Why "perhaps"?
This is the question that separates the commentaries, and the one a reader of the half-verse never gets to ask.
"Perhaps" is the language of hope or expectation — and expectation does not belong to God, who knows. So why is it here? And why is it said twice, once for the thing hated and once for the thing loved, when once would seem to carry the point? As-Safi and al-Mizan each have an answer, and the two answers are not the same.
The Sunni reading: al-Muyassar
Al-Muyassar ties the verse to its occasion. Fighting is prescribed, and it is disliked by natural disposition — because of its hardship and its many dangers — not because it is evil. From there the rule generalises: you may dislike a thing while in truth it is good for you, and you may love a thing for the ease or the immediate pleasure in it while it is bad for you. God knows what is good for you, and you do not.
The Shia reading: as-Safi and al-Mizan
As-Safi resolves the apparent contradiction by adding a distinction of time that the wording leaves implicit: the thing is hated now and good in its outcome. The two are not predicated of the same moment, so they do not collide. Al-Kashani then extends the rule across religious duty as a whole — most of what people are commanded to do, their nature dislikes, and it is the very thing their welfare hangs on; most of what they are forbidden, the self loves, and it leads it to ruin. As for "perhaps", he gives it a particular sense: it is said because the self, once trained and reconciled, finds the matter reversed for it, and comes to love what it used to hate.
Al-Mizan answers the same question from grammar instead. Al-Tabataba'i notes that words like "perhaps" and "maybe" in God's speech carry the sense of expectation, but that the expectation need not reside in the speaker: it is enough that it reside in the one addressed, or in the setting of the address. God says "perhaps it will be so" not because He hopes it — far above that — but so that the one addressed, or the one listening, should hope it. And the repetition he explains from the state of the audience: the believers disliked war and loved peace, so they were corrected on both counts at once. Had only one half been said, the correction would have been incomplete.
Where the three agree
- The verse belongs to the ruling on fighting, and the dislike is of disposition, not a verdict on the ruling.
- The measure of good and evil is not what the self finds now, but what God knows.
- The two clauses state a rule that reaches past its occasion: what you dislike may be good, what you love may be bad.
- The verse closes by assigning knowledge to God and denying it to people, and that closing line is what decides it.
Where each goes its own way
- Al-Muyassar stays with the meaning and does not take up the word "perhaps" at all.
- As-Safi dissolves the tension with time — now against outcome — and reads "perhaps" as pointing to the fact that the reversal is not inevitable for everyone.
- Al-Mizan treats it as a question of rhetoric and syntax: expectation lodged in the addressee rather than the speaker, and a repetition aimed at a specific audience with two errors to correct.
Two different answers to one question, and each adds something the other does not.
The one other place
Counted on the site's own Arabic text, the construction behind "perhaps you hate a thing" occurs in just two verses (Sahih International renders the second one as "dislike"). That second place is in Surah An-Nisa, in a completely different setting — how a husband treats a wife he has come to dislike:
O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion. And do not make difficulties for them in order to take [back] part of what you gave them unless they commit a clear immorality. And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them - perhaps you dislike a thing and Allah makes therein much good.
Note the difference in what is claimed. Al-Baqarah says the disliked thing may itself be good for you. An-Nisa says God may place much good in it. The senses are close; the claims are not identical.
What the verse claims, and what it does not
- It states that human judgement of good and harm is incomplete, and that complete knowledge belongs to God. That is the closing line, and it is the point.
- It does not say that everything disliked is good, or everything loved is bad. The word is "perhaps", not "indeed".
- It does not promise that what a person dislikes will turn to good in this life. It denies the authority of the self's measure; it does not guarantee an outcome.
- Its own setting is a heavy legal command, not a personal misfortune — though the rule does extend to everything a person is charged with, as as-Safi reads it.
Read:
Related: