This article evaluates and critiques the views of Uri Rubin, a contemporary scholar of Islamic studies, regarding Surah Quraysh. Employing a multifaceted methodology—incorporating intra-Quranic analysis, a study of the history of exegesis, and an examination of linguistic evidence—Rubin concludes that, in its original context, the Surah rebukes the Quraysh for neglecting the worship of the Lord of the Kaaba while being obsessively preoccupied with trade. He argues that the term *īlāf* refers to security pacts and that the *lām* (prefix) at the beginning of the Surah signifies astonishment (*lām al-taʿajjub*), thereby shifting the Surah’s tone to one of reproach. However, post-Quranic exegeses—influenced by the political exigencies of the Qurayshi Caliphate—transformed this critical portrayal into a text extolling the virtues of the Quraysh. The present article adopts an analytical-critical approach, utilizing a methodology that combines source validation with comparative and intra-textual analysis of the Quran; specifically, verses sharing themes with Surah Quraysh serve as the benchmark for assessing Rubin’s claims regarding the Surah’s tone and concepts. While acknowledging the strengths of Rubin’s approach—particularly his attention to the evolution of exegesis—this study raises serious criticisms of his hypotheses. These criticisms include his selective use of linguistic evidence, his disregard for the economic necessities of Mecca during that era, and his assertion of certainty regarding a specific interpretation of the *lām* prefix. Research findings indicate that the claim of an inherent conflict between commerce and acts of worship in this Surah lacks a solid historical or linguistic basis. Furthermore, given that verses containing harsher condemnations of the Quraysh (such as those in Surahs al-Humazah and al-Takathur) appear in Muslim exegeses without alteration or reinterpretation, one cannot attribute political motives to all commentators—including political opponents of the ruling establishment. Had such distortion occurred, one would expect a critical reading to have been offered and documented in the sources; yet, this is not the case.