The present article evaluates and critically examines the interpretation of Uri Rubin, a contemporary scholar of Islam, regarding Surah Quraysh. Employing a combined methodology that includes intratextual Qur’anic analysis, the study of the history of exegesis, and the examination of linguistic evidence, Rubin concludes that in its original context, the surah reproaches the Quraysh for neglecting the worship of the Lord of the Kaʿbah and for their obsessive preoccupation with trade. He argues that the term īlāf refers to security agreements or covenants, while the prefixed lām at the beginning of the surah functions as a lām al-taʿajjub (particle of exclamation), thereby transforming the tone of the chapter into one of reproach. According to Rubin, however, post-Qur’anic interpretations, influenced by the political necessities of the Qurayshite caliphate, transformed this critical portrayal into a text praising the virtues and privileges of the Quraysh.
Adopting an analytical–critical approach, the present study employs a methodology that combines source validation, comparative analysis, and intratextual examination. While acknowledging the strengths of Rubin’s approach, particularly his attention to the historical development of exegetical traditions, the article raises significant objections to several of his hypotheses. These criticisms include his selective treatment of linguistic evidence, his neglect of the economic realities and livelihood requirements of Mecca during the relevant period, and his unwarranted certainty regarding one particular interpretation of the initial lām.
The findings of this research indicate that the claim of an inherent opposition between commerce and worship in this surah lacks solid historical and linguistic support. Furthermore, given that Muslim exegetical sources preserved and transmitted without alteration or reinterpretation other Qur’anic passages containing even stronger condemnations of the Quraysh—such as those found in Surah al-Humazah and Surah al-Takāthur—it is difficult to attribute political motives uniformly to all exegetes, including those who were political opponents of the ruling establishment. Had such a deliberate distortion occurred, one would reasonably expect critical alternative readings to have emerged and been recorded in the exegetical tradition. The absence of such evidence further weakens Rubin’s hypothesis.