Verses 41–64

Chapter 16: Al-Nahl (The Bee) · Printed edition: Volume 24, pp. 78–122

The initial two verses of this section highlight the concept of migration, offering a rewarding promise to those who undertake the journey for God, both in this life and the hereafter. The subsequent verses address the issue of polytheism (that is, associating partners with God) and unauthorized legislation by the people, elaborating on the response to idolaters who perceived the prophetic invitation to forsake the worship of false gods and the forbidding of what God has not prohibited as unfeasible. This is indicated in the phrase “And those who associated partners (with Allah) said,” and so forth.

Commentary

وَالَّذِينَ هَاجَرُواْ فِي اللَّهِ مِن بَعْدِ مَا ظُلِمُواْ لَنُبَوِّئَنَّهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا حَسَنَةً وَلَأَجْرُ الآخِرَةِ أَكْبَرُ لَوْ كَانُواْ يَعْلَمُونَ ٤١

(16:41) And those who migrated for God after they had been wronged, We will surely settle them in this world in a good place; but the reward of the Hereafter is greater, if only they knew.

This verse extends a beautiful promise to the Emigrants (those who embarked on migration for the sake of God). The believers undertook two significant migrations from Mecca. The initial journey led a group of believers to Abyssinia, a refuge sanctioned by God and His Prophet, where they sought respite from the persecution and oppression of the Meccan polytheists.

The subsequent migration was from Mecca to Medina, aligning with the Prophet’s own migration. The verse, in its context, seems to resonate more closely with this latter migration. The surrounding verses lend themselves more fittingly to the events and circumstances of the migration to Medina than to the earlier journey to Abyssinia.

The term “for God” (fi Allah) in conjunction with “migrated” emphasizes that their migration was driven purely by the desire to gain God’s pleasure, without any ulterior motives. This is akin to phrases like “He traveled in pursuit of knowledge,” or “He left in search of livelihood,” where the primary objective is the pursuit of knowledge or livelihood. The subsequent part, “after they had been wronged,” is similarly tied to this singular purpose. Thus, the comprehensive interpretation of the statement would be: “And those who migrated for God after they had been wronged for His cause.” The passage is deliberately concise, serving as a succinct descriptor of migration. This conciseness is fitting since migration, as a test of faith, merits specific mention of the circumstances surrounding it.

Regarding the phrase: “We will surely settle them in this world in a good place,” some have said that it means a good land, replacing what they left behind, like Mecca and its surroundings, as implied by “We will surely settle them,” because to settle someone in a place means to make it suitable and comfortable for them.

Alternatively, it has been interpreted to mean a good state, like victory and triumph, thus making “We will surely settle them,” etc., a metaphorical expression.

In essence, both interpretations arrive at a similar conclusion: the Emigrants’ journey aimed to create an exemplary Islamic society, devoted to the worship of God and grounded in justice and compassion. Whether their ultimate aspiration was to achieve a noble purpose or to commend the destination for its virtues, it was centered around the formation of a just and righteous community. Their praise for the place of their migration was not for its material benefits, like water or climate, but for the Islamic community they aspired to establish there. Therefore, the ‘good’ reward promised by God in this world is essentially the fruition of the community they endeavored to build, regardless of whether the term ‘good’ is interpreted as referring to the physical locality or the ultimate objective.

“And the reward of the Hereafter is greater, if only they knew” completes the promise and indicates that the reward of the Hereafter is better than this worldly reward, if only they knew what blessings God has prepared for them therein, for it includes happiness without hardship, eternal life without end, pleasure unmarred by pain, and nearness to the Lord of the Worlds.

الَّذِينَ صَبَرُواْ وَعَلَى رَبِّهِمْ يَتَوَكَّلُونَ ٤٢

(16:42) Those who endured and upon their Lord they rely

The context of the two verses suggests a focus on the promised reward, both worldly and heavenly, for anyone who migrates for God. This assurance is not contingent on the actual act of migration at the time of this proclamation. The verse essentially conveys: “Whoever migrates for God shall receive such rewards.” Hence, the phrase “Those who endured, etc.” is primarily intended to characterize the Emigrants as individuals of patience and reliance on God, without delving into the specific adversities they faced while residing among the polytheists prior to their migration.

The highlighting of these traits is crucial, as they are fundamental to the attainment of the promised prosperous outcome. Without enduring the rigors of striving in God’s cause, without resisting despair in the face of tribulations, and without depending on God rather than their own limited strength, they would have faltered. Their community, built through migration, would not have sustained, their adversaries would have scattered them, and the virtuous society they forged would have crumbled in this world, consequently forfeiting their rewards in the Hereafter.

However, if the verse aims to promise those who had already migrated prior to its revelation—acknowledging their sacrifices, their forfeiture of homes and wealth, and their perseverance through trials and adversities—then the phrase “Those who endured and upon their Lord they rely” serves as commendation. It recognizes their endurance against the polytheists’ hostility in Mecca for the sake of God and their steadfast reliance on God throughout their journey of adherence to Islam.

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ إِلاَّ رِجَالاً نُّوحِي إِلَيْهِمْ فَاسْأَلُواْ أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِن كُنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ ٤٣

(16:43) And We sent not before you but men to whom We revealed. So ask the people of the remembrance if you do not know

This is a reiteration of the explanation of how messengers were sent and scriptures revealed, to clarify for the polytheists that religious call was but a normal call from men who received revelation, men of their own kind, who advocated what was beneficial for people in their worldly and afterlife affairs.

None of the messengers, nor any scripture of the laws, claimed that the religious call was a manifestation of the overwhelming invisible power that controls everything, or a creative will to demolish the ongoing natural order and invalidate the principle of human free will. This counters the claim of those of them who said: Had Allah wished, we would not have worshiped anything besides Him...”

Thus, when God says: And We sent not before you but men to whom We revealed (), this is intended to limit the role of messengership to ordinary human beings, men who received revelations, contrary to the polytheists’ claim that were divine revelation to occur it would represent a disruption of the natural order and an invalidation of human free will.

This demonstrates the incorrectness of what some have claimed, namely that the verse was intended to refute the polytheists of Quraysh, who believed that humans were unfit for messengership and that it should be the role of God’s angels. The verse shows that the Divine modus operandi, according to God’s infinite wisdom, has always been to send only men from among humans as messengers, to whom knowledge, commands, and prohibitions are revealed.

The context of the verses does not support this interpretation, nor is there any mention in the previous conversation of their claim or proposal to send angels for messengership, to direct the statement to that.

What preceded is the polytheists’ statement: “Had Allah wished, we would not have worshiped anything besides Him…, which was intended to prove the impossibility of prophethood, not arguing that it was the responsibility of angels rather than mortal men.

This verse has been cited by some as proof that God Almighty exclusively appointed men, not children or women, as messengers. Nevertheless, the unique case of Jesus’s prophethood during his infancy can be understood by distinguishing between the concepts of prophethood and messengership. Prophethood encompasses a broader scope than messengership. When Jesus declared, “Indeed, I am the servant of Allah. He has given me the scripture and made me a prophet” (), he was referencing his prophethood, which does not necessarily equate to the role of a messenger.

The logic presented in this verse stems from the phrase: “And We sent not before you but men to whom We revealed…” This term, as utilized in the Qur’an, encompasses not just the messenger but also the prophet who does not hold the status of a messenger, as mentioned in the Qur’an: “And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet... ().” Should this interpretation hold, it would suggest that both messengership and prophethood are roles not designated for children or women. However, this notion is challenged by the instances where God speaks of Jesus: “Indeed, I am the servant of Allah. He has given me the scripture and made me a prophet (),” and of John: “And We gave him judgment while a boy (),” indicating their early divine appointments.

Key Debate: The People of the Reminder →

In essence, the verse “And We sent not before you but men…” serves to underscore that the messengers were mere mortals, without specifically highlighting the age at which they commenced their missions. The primary objective is to illustrate that figures like Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and John—who were messengers—were ordinary men graced with revelations. They were not beings endowed with extraordinary, unseen forces or divine powers of creation.

This is similar to another verse: And We sent not before you but men to whom We revealed. So ask the people of the reminder (ahl al-dhikr) if you do not know. And We did not make them bodies that did not eat food, nor were they immortals ().

The statement: So ask the people of the reminder if you do not know apparently addresses the Prophet Muḥammad and his people. The conversation was previously directed specifically at the Prophet, but the meaning was intended for everyone. Hence, the address is generalized to include everyone, so each person among the addressed can choose their path. Those who do not know, like some polytheists, should refer to the people of the reminder and ask them. Those who are aware, like the Prophet and those who believe in him, do not need to seek advice or ask questions.

The directive: “So ask the people of the reminder if you do not know,” ostensibly addresses both Prophet Muhammad and his people. While the preceding dialogue was aimed directly at the Prophet, its intended message is universal. Consequently, the instruction broadens to encompass all individuals, granting each the autonomy to navigate their own path. Those in ignorance, such as certain polytheists, are encouraged to consult the people of the reminder for inquiries. Conversely, those already enlightened, like the Prophet and his followers, have no need for external counsel or inquiries.

It’s argued by some that this verse is directed at the polytheists, positioning them as the skeptics who should seek insights from others. However, such an interpretation suggests a transition in the addressee from a singular individual to a collective group, a shift for which there seems to be no clear justification.

The concept of dhikr (“reminder”) involves the retention or recall of information. It also pertains to the tools or methods facilitating such retention or recall. Al-Rāghib, in his Mufradāt, states: “The term dhikr can sometimes signify a mental state that assists an individual in maintaining acquired knowledge. This concept is akin to memorization (hifz), with the distinction that memorization relates to the initial acquisition of knowledge, while dhikr pertains to its subsequent retrieval. At times, dhikr may refer to the mental or verbal presence of a concept. Consequently, dhikr is categorized into two primary types: inward remembrance (in the heart) and outward remembrance (verbal articulation). Each category further divides into two subsets: remembrance as a counteraction to forgetfulness and remembrance as a proactive measure for sustained retention.”

Hence, the term “reminder” is indicative of its role in transmitting meaning and embedding it within the mind. Predominantly, in the context of the Qur’an, it’s employed in relation to the remembrance of God. Consequently, whenever dhikr is mentioned in the Qur’an without explicit context, it generally denotes the act of remembering God.

In this vein, the Qur’an, along with the prophetic revelations and scriptures bestowed upon the prophets, are also termed “reminders.” While there are many verses supporting this notion, it’s not necessary to enumerate them here. Notably, God refers to the Qur’an as a “reminder” in the subsequent verse.

The Qur’an serves as a reminder, much like Noah’s Book, Abraham’s Scrolls, Moses’ Torah, David’s Psalms, and Jesus’ Gospel—peace be upon him—all of which are divine scriptures acknowledged in the Qur’an. They all function as reminders. Individuals who engage with these texts and uphold their teachings are recognized as “the people of the reminder.”

Considering that experts of a subject are profoundly acquainted with its nuances and possess comprehensive knowledge about its intricacies, it’s logical to refer to them for deeper understanding. Individuals who diligently study, comprehend, and adhere to the principles of the heavenly scriptures are the true connoisseurs of these texts and the prophets who introduced them. Therefore, those eager to deepen their understanding of these sacred texts and prophetic teachings should turn to these well-versed experts for insight.

Nonetheless, the polytheists, who were the intended recipients of directives like: “So ask the people of the reminder,” did not recognize Prophet Muhammad’s prophethood, nor did they accept his claims. They even derided the Qur’an, referred to as the “reminder,” as evidenced in their taunt: “O you to whom the reminder has been sent down, indeed, you are mad...” (). Given this context, the exhortation: “So ask the people of the reminder” seems to be directed specifically at the followers of the Torah. This is especially pertinent considering that these individuals, despite being adversaries of the Prophet and rejecting his prophethood, were viewed more favorably by the polytheists, as indicated by their assertion: “These are more guided than those who believe” ().

There’s a notion that the term “the people of the reminder” encompasses those well-versed in the histories of bygone civilizations, regardless of their faith or lack thereof. Here, “reminder” symbolizes knowledge, as understanding typically arises from recollecting what has been signified, essentially equating to attributing the effect to its cause.

However, this interpretation seems to be a metaphorical stretch, lacking a convincing context to justify such a reading. Particularly, when considering the typical usage of ‘reminder’ in the Noble Qur’an, this interpretation does not seem to resonate with the conventional narrative.

There’s a perspective that “the people of the reminder” denotes the followers of the Qur’an, considering God has labeled it a reminder. This group would encompass the Prophet, his companions, and the believers. While it’s undeniable that the Qur’an is a reminder and its adherents are rightfully its people, construing the verse exclusively in this context doesn’t fully bolster the argument. Given that the primary audience of this message did not recognize the Prophet’s prophethood, it seems implausible that they would accept insights from his followers, the believers.

Regardless, the verse imparts a universally sensible principle: the imperative for those lacking knowledge to consult those with expertise. The directive inferred from the verse isn’t a religious decree per se, nor is the instruction for the uninformed to seek answers from scholars, or specifically from “the people of the reminder,” a divinely legislated command. This should be evidently clear.

بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالزُّبُرِ وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَلَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ ٤٤

(16:44) with manifest proofs and scriptures. We have sent down the reminder to you so that you may clarify for the people that which has been sent down to them, so that they may reflect.

The phrase “With manifest proofs and scriptures...” connects back to the subject introduced in the preceding verse: “And We have sent before you...” It essentially conveys: “We dispatched them with manifest proofs and scriptures.” These represent unequivocal evidence of their prophethood and the divine scriptures entrusted to them. The primary intent of the previous verse was to emphasize that the messengers were mere mortals. Consequently, this might have prompted the query: with what authority or evidence were these messengers sent? The response is encapsulated in the phrase, indicating they were sent with indisputable proofs and sacred texts. The proofs served to validate their prophethood, while the scriptures ensured the perpetuation of their teachings.

There’s a viewpoint that associates the phrase with “And We have not sent...” interpreted as, ‘We have not dispatched anyone with clear proofs and scriptures, except for “men to whom We have revealed.”’ While this reading is acceptable on its own, it doesn’t fully capture the nuanced implication previously discussed.

The phrase: We have sent down the reminder to you so that you may explain for the people that which has been sent down to them, so that they may reflect, undoubtedly indicates that the revelation of the scripture to the people and the descent of the reminder to the Prophet are one and the same. The revelation to the people is through him so that they may adopt it and implement it in practice, as stated: O mankind, there has come to you a conclusive proof from your Lord, and We have sent down to you a clear light () and Indeed, We have sent down to you a Book in which is your mention. Then will you not reason? ().

At its core, the message of this reminder is universal, applying equally to you and all people. Your role as the chosen messenger is not to wield divine, unseen powers or a creative will that grants dominion over others. Rather, your mission is twofold:

Firstly, your purpose is to elucidate the revelations progressively bestowed upon humanity. Divine knowledge (or wisdom) is not inherently accessible to people without a mediator. Thus, a messenger is appointed to interpret and impart this knowledge. Your responsibility is to receive, disseminate, and elucidate the revelations, (bridging the gap between the divine and the human.)

Secondly, your mission aims to inspire contemplation and realization among the people that the teachings you present are indeed divine truth. The trajectory of your life—marked by orphanhood, anonymity, lack of formal education, absence of a righteous guardian, poverty, and your existence among the unenlightened and the deprived, devoid of the fruits of civilization and noble virtues—served as undeniable proof that you could not have accessed or acquired such profound wisdom on your own. Yet, it was God Almighty who graced you with a reminder, a scripture that challenges both jinn and mankind, surpasses all prior divine texts, and serves as a comprehensive guide, a source of mercy, an irrefutable argument, and a beacon of clear illumination.

Consequently, contemplating your life and circumstances serves as a compelling guide to the realization that your contributions were not of your own making. It underscores that you played no part in crafting the message you delivered, affirming that what you brought forth originated solely from God’s knowledge. He revealed it through His omniscience and upheld you with His omnipotence, entirely independent of conventional influences or causes.

Taking into account the context of this verse and the ones preceding it, the underlying message is that the phrase “so that you may explain” delineates the ultimate purpose of the revelation. This purpose is not centered on the revelation itself but is intrinsically linked to the persona of the Prophet. The implicit subject of “they might reflect” is construed as something akin to “on you,” as opposed to “on the reminder.”

Nonetheless, some have posited that the phrase “so that you may explain” signifies the ultimate aim of the revelation, with the intended contemplation being directed at the reminder itself, to recognize its authenticity as a divine revelation. Under this interpretation, the verse’s essence would be: “And We have sent down to you the reminder,” referring to the Qur’an, “so you may elucidate for all people the contents of that reminder. This includes the fundamental principles of knowledge, statutes, legislative frameworks, accounts of previous civilizations, and the patterns of divine interaction observed among them. The aspiration is that they will ponder upon the reminder, to discern its veracity as originating from God, or deliberate over the matters you elucidate to them.”

Yet, a discerning reader will recognize that this interpretation inherently implies a redundancy. It suggests the revelation was sent to the Prophet to elucidate what has already been revealed to the people, despite the revelation being singular. The only way to reconcile this apparent redundancy is to modify the phrasing to something akin to: “And We have sent down to you the reminder so that you may elucidate it for them.”

أَفَأَمِنَ الَّذِينَ مَكَرُواْ السَّيِّئَاتِ أَن يَخْسِفَ اللَّهُ بِهِمُ الأَرْضَ أَوْ يَأْتِيَهُمُ الْعَذَابُ مِنْ حَيْثُ لاَ يَشْعُرُونَ ٤٥

(16:45) Did those who plotted evil deeds then feel secure that Allah would not cause the earth to swallow them, or that punishment would come upon them unexpectedly?

This verse, along with the two that follow it, serves as a stark warning and threat directed at the polytheists. These individuals, who dedicated their worship to others besides God and established their own laws and rituals, adhered to their self-created customs, turning their backs on the divine statutes delivered through the prophets. They justified their actions with groundless and self-concocted arguments. All their behaviors, whether in action or inaction, in giving or withholding, in doing or refraining, were marred by sin. Paramount among these was their arrogance and conceit, a conscious defiance against God and His messengers who called them towards God and the path of righteousness.

Hence, in the noble verse, the phrase “evil deeds” serves as the direct object of “plotted,” indicating not just contemplation but actual actions. Thus, “who plotted evil deeds” translates to “they executed evil deeds with deceit.” The interpretation by some commentators suggesting that “evil deeds” functions as an adjective replacing an absolute object, leading to the rendering “who plotted evil plots,” does not align with the verse’s context and is deemed inaccurate.

In short, the verse threatens and warns the polytheists, including those of Mecca, of divine punishment. This statement is a continuation of the previous topics, hence the use of “then” as a mark of consequence, as in then feel secure.

The essence of the verse is that, with evident signs confirming God as the sole Lord, unrivaled in His Lordship, and the realization that prophethood is not merely plausible but a call towards what benefits humankind in both worldly matters and the hereafter—delivered by individuals chosen and guided by God—how then could those who deliberately turn away from this divine call feel secure? Those who, through deception, oppose God and His messenger, resorting to fallacious reasoning to justify abandoning their faith, enacting arbitrary laws, and indulging in sinful acts, how could they presume safety from God’s might, that He wouldn’t cause the earth beneath them to give way or unleash unforeseen punishment upon them?

أَوْ يَأْخُذَهُمْ فِي تَقَلُّبِهِمْ فَمَا هُم بِمُعْجِزِينَ ٤٦

(16:46) Or that He might seize them during their movements (taqallubi-him) so that they could not escape.

In this context, “He might seize them” unmistakably points to God Almighty, with the Qur’an often attributing the act of seizing (akhdh) to Him. However, some interpreters contend that the true subject is “punishment,” implying that “the punishment might seize them.” The term taqallub (“movements”) encapsulates the notion of fluctuating states, reflecting the polytheists’ constant shifts in their reprehensible intentions and deeds, as they oscillate among various worldly pleasures. This notion aligns with the message conveyed elsewhere in the Qur’an: “Let not the free movement of the disbelievers throughout the land deceive you; It is but a small enjoyment; then their final abode is Hell, and wretched is the resting place” (), underscoring the transient nature of their earthly pursuits.

Thus, the meaning of seizing them during their movements is that God (or alternatively, the punishment) intercepts them amidst their engagement in sin and their conspiracies against God and His messenger. It’s conceivable that this refers to God meting out punishment through the very blessings they revel in, transforming these supposed blessings into sources of affliction. This interpretation resonates more profoundly with the phrase “they could not escape.”

The phrase “they could not escape” justifies the act of seizing them amidst their maneuvers and duplicitous deeds, signifying their inability to thwart God’s power, whether by overpowering Him or by eluding His will. The meaning is clear.

أَوْ يَأْخُذَهُمْ عَلَى تَخَوُّفٍ فَإِنَّ رَبَّكُمْ لَرَؤُوفٌ رَّحِيمٌ ٤٧

(16:47) Or He might seize them with fear (ʿalā takhawwuf), for indeed your Lord is Kind and Merciful.

The term takhawwuf (“fear”) denotes the instillation and presence of fear in the heart. Thus, being seized with fear signifies a punishment preceded by apprehension, where early indicators emerge, offering an opportunity for those concerned to avert its full onset through acts of repentance, remorse, and the like. In this sense, being seized with fear stands in contrast to the abrupt onset of punishment; the former entails a forewarned punishment, while the latter descends suddenly, without any forewarning.

Some interpretations suggest that being seized with fear refers to experiencing terrifying yet non-fatal events, such as earthquakes or storms.

Others have interpreted takhawwuf as diminution, suggesting that God subjects them to a gradual depletion of blessings. This could manifest as a sequential withdrawal of life’s comforts: initially stripping away security, then curtailing rainfall, diminishing prosperity and abundance, and ultimately impacting physical health, among other things.

أَوَ لَمْ يَرَوْا إِلَى مَا خَلَقَ اللَّهُ مِن شَيْءٍ يَتَفَيَّأُ ظِلالُهُ عَنِ الْيَمِينِ وَالْشَّمَائِلِ سُجَّدًا لِلَّهِ وَهُمْ دَاخِرُونَ ٤٨

(16:48) Do they not see how everything God created casts its shadow (yatafayyuʾ zilalu-hu) right and left (ʿan al-yamīn wa al-shamāʾil), prostrating (dakhirīn) to God in humility?

In this context, “see” points to the physical and sensory recognition of objects, directing focus not towards the shadows, but towards the entities that cast these shadows.

Tafayyuʾ is derived from fayʾ, indicating a shadow in motion, commonly associated with shadows from the afternoon until the day’s end. As noted earlier, the term zill (“shadow”) has a broader meaning than fayʾ. The verse reinforces this notion, implying that tafayyuʾ pertains to the shadow’s movement or shift during the afternoon hours.

Shamāʾil, the plural of shimāl (“left”), contrasts with yamīn (“right”). The plural usage signifies the encompassment of all sides deemed to be on the left, juxtaposed with the right. This stems from the concept that an object casting multiple shadows is perceived as producing distinct shadows on both its left and right sides. Hence, each individual shadow on the left and right is considered separate, although the term ‘thing’ is mentioned in the singular form but implies a plural connotation. The term dakhirīn symbolizes submission and humility.

This verse highlights that every part of creation, as evidenced by their shadows shifting throughout the day, is in a state of perpetual prostration and submission to God.

The specific verse, “Do they not see how everything God created casts its shadow right and left, prostrating to God in humility?” addresses the polytheists who reject the concepts of monotheism and prophethood. It urges them to consider the natural world, where the mere motion of shadows, oscillating from side to side, signifies a natural state of obeisance and humility towards the divine majesty. This phenomenon mirrors the act of prostration and submission performed universally by all beings, encompassing both terrestrial and celestial entities, from animals to angels.

Therefore, the verse poses a question to the polytheists: If the natural world evidently submits to God, with even shadows prostrating before God, why do they deny it? It underscores that all entities, whether on Earth or in the heavens, are in a state of obedience to Him. This includes even those entities that polytheists have mistakenly revered – be it angels, jinn, or revered humans – all are bound by submission to God.

All these entities inherently display their submission and obedience to God’s will, manifesting their reverence through these instinctive gestures of worship. This natural phenomenon vividly demonstrates the existence of a sole sovereign, God Almighty, underscoring His rightful claim to be worshiped and approached with utmost humility. Such acts of submission and prostration encapsulate the core principles of monotheism and the teachings of the prophets, which, regrettably, the polytheists reject. Fundamentally, monotheism is the recognition and acceptance of God Almighty as the sole entity deserving of our submission and reverence. In parallel, the core of religion, as preached by the prophets, revolves around acknowledging and adhering to God’s commandments.

Hence, the verse conveys: “Do they—these polytheists, who reject the concept of a singular Lord and dismiss the message of the prophets, not see—have they not witnessed—how everything God created—from towering structures like mountains and edifices to trees and any upright form on the earth’s terrain—casts its shadow—and shifts and oscillates—right and left, prostrating to God—falling to the ground in an act of worship and veneration towards Him, the Exalted—in humility?—submissive and filled with awe.”

The discussion on the meaning of the shadows’ prostration under the saying of God: And their shadows in the mornings and the afternoons () has already been discussed in this commentary.

وَلِلَّهِ يَسْجُدُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الأَرْضِ مِن دَابَّةٍ وَالْمَلائِكَةُ وَهُمْ لاَ يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ ٤٩ يَخَافُونَ رَبَّهُم مِّن فَوْقِهِمْ وَيَفْعَلُونَ مَا يُؤْمَرُونَ ٥٠

(16:49-50) And to Allah prostrates whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth of creatures, and the angels, and they are not arrogant. They fear their Lord above them, and do what they are commanded.

The previous verse discussed the bowing of shadows, symbolizing an abstract form of prostration to God. Following this, the verse highlights the actual prostration of all beings in the heavens and on earth, encompassing every living entity—defined as anything capable of movement and transition from one position to another. This real act of prostration signifies profound humility and absolute submission to the grandeur and splendor of the Divine. Therefore, a physical act of prostration, where one falls face down to the ground, is deemed an act of worship only when it truly represents this deep humility, making such reverence the true essence of prostration.

Humans and jinn are encompassed within the broader classification of creatures, as the Almighty characterizes them in ways that suggest mobility, akin to other beings like animals. On the contrary, angels are not broadly categorized as creatures but are referred to distinctly. This nuanced distinction hints that the actions ascribed to angels in divine speech—such as descending, ascending, and traversing—differ fundamentally from the physical, spatial movements associated with earthly creatures.

Therefore, the verse “And to God prostrates whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth of creatures, and the angels...” signifies that every being in the heavens and on earth inherently surrenders and adheres to God’s command, epitomizing the genuine essence of prostration. It underscores that worship and prostration are exclusively due to God.

Additionally, this verse hints at the presence of life forms in celestial realms beyond Earth, pointing to the existence of life beyond our known world.

… and the angels, and they are not arrogant: Arrogance (istikbār) in humans is deemed a negative trait, as it reflects an attitude of self-perceived superiority and an unwarranted assumption of a higher status. While kibriyāʾ can describe God’s inherent majesty, it’s appropriate because God is truly supreme and exalted. The term mustakbir (arrogant) isn’t used for God since arrogance suggests an aspiration to greatness, hinting at an absence of inherent grandeur. Arrogance is reproachable because it involves a baseless assertion of dominance rooted in vanity. Conversely, takabbur (pride) might signify a rightful display of inherent worthiness, which is fitting and just in the context of God but objectionable in humans.

Hence, arrogance is universally censured, whereas pride is context-dependent; it’s objectionable when exhibited by anyone other than God. Arrogance can manifest in attitudes towards fellow beings or towards the Creator.

Arrogance towards fellow beings is reprehensible. It implies a sense of superiority, ignoring the reality that both the arrogant individual and those they belittle are equally reliant and lack control over their own fortunes or misfortunes. This form of arrogance is essentially an act of overstepping and injustice.

Conversely, arrogance towards the Creator is particularly deplorable as it denotes a false sense of self-reliance and denial of dependence, showcasing a profound misunderstanding of the Creator’s omnipotence. The fundamental dynamic between a servant and their Lord is marked by humility on one side and absolute authority on the other, dependency on one side and complete self-sufficiency on the other. Recognizing and reflecting upon this dynamic naturally fosters a disposition of humility and precludes any notions of defying or challenging the Creator.

When splendor and loftiness belong solely to God, any attempt by an individual to claim these attributes is essentially a defiance of the Lord, an encroachment upon His unique status, and an exhibition of arrogance towards Him. This arrogance is not just in attitude but also manifests in behavior, as it leads one to ignore God’s commands and overlook His prohibitions. Such defiance can only stem from a deluded perception of possessing a will that operates independently or even contrary to God’s will.

Therefore, the characterization of angels as “and they are not arrogant,” especially within the context of their devotion to God, serves as a testament to their unwavering submission. It confirms that angels consistently honor their Creator, maintaining constant awareness and remembrance of His sovereignty, and never displaying arrogance towards Him.

The verse under discussion unequivocally asserts that angels are devoid of arrogance, both in their essence and in their conduct. It clearly communicates that angels do not exhibit arrogance towards God; they are constantly mindful of Him, thus lacking arrogance in their nature, and their actions consistently align with worship and obedience, never contravening His directives. To reinforce this comprehensive negation of arrogance, the Qur’an adds: “They fear their Lord above them, and do what they are commanded.” The initial segment of this statement rejects the notion of inherent arrogance among angels, while the latter part dismisses the possibility of arrogance in their deeds. The expression “They fear their Lord above them” underscores the angels’ profound reverence for God. Given that God is the embodiment of benevolence, and the reference here is to the fear of God Himself rather than the dread of His retribution—as expressed in other verses like “They hope for His mercy and fear His punishment” ()—this fear is fundamentally a reverence for God Himself. Despite God being the epitome of benevolence, their fear stems from an acknowledgment of God’s immense power and grandeur.

This fear represents the innate sense of humility, reverence, and diminution felt in the presence of the Almighty and Sublime. It is the heart’s profound response when confronted with an overwhelming Superior Force. The angels’ fear is a deep-seated reaction, born from continually beholding the majestic stature of their Lord and never losing sight of His omnipotence.

The inclusion of the qualifier “above them” with the phrase “They fear their Lord” underscores that the angels’ reverence originates from God’s supreme and dominant position over them. This fear is a response to God’s elevated stature, not a fear of potential punishment. It’s a fundamental quality, essentially highlighting their total lack of innate arrogance.

The phrase “and they do what they are commanded” reflects the absence of practical arrogance. As mentioned, a servant devoid of any intrinsic arrogance towards the Almighty naturally won’t show any active rebellion either. Thus, in the verse’s discussion of angels, after intrinsic arrogance is negated, active defiance is also dismissed. The phrase “They do not disobey God but do whatever they are commanded” emphasizes this. The use of the passive form “what they are commanded” rather than “what God commands them” serves to further elevate God’s status, which is obvious.

It’s clear that angels represent a unique creation of God, perpetually mindful of Him. They are immune to forgetfulness, distraction, or negligence, fully engrossed in fulfilling God’s will.

The emphasis on angels in the context of prostration is deliberate. It addresses the idolaters’ misconceptions, as they often revered deities representing various elements like the heavens, earth, sustenance, or beauty. Highlighting the angels’ prostration serves a dual purpose: firstly, to refute the idol worshipers’ beliefs by clarifying that angels, unlike their deified counterparts, are profoundly devoted to serving God. Secondly, it underscores the fact that angels, among all beings, are the most deeply committed to their servitude to the Almighty.

Some commentators interpret this verse intriguingly, proposing that angels, akin to humans, are bound by duties and dwell in a state of fear and hope. They infer this from the verse’s portrayal of angels as beings who follow commands, suggesting a sense of duty. Additionally, the mention of fear in relation to the angels implies the presence of hope, as fear typically accompanies the anticipation of hope.

Nonetheless, this argument doesn’t hold up when considering that the Qur’an often uses the imperative form without implying actual obligation. This is evident in verses addressing inanimate entities like the heavens and the earth. For example, in “He said to it and to the earth: ‘Come willingly or unwillingly.’ They both said: ‘We come willingly’” (), and “And the day He says, ‘Be,’ and it is” (), the imperative form is used, but it doesn’t imply a sense of duty or obligation.

Regarding the notion that fear inherently suggests hope, this typically pertains to the fear of divine retribution or impending adversity. However, we’ve earlier clarified that the fear referenced in the verse is an intrinsic fear, born from a profound reverence in the face of God’s majesty and magnificence. It represents the emotional response and deference of the weak before the powerful, the reverence of those humbled before the awe-inspiring might and splendor of the Almighty. This type of fear is distinct and does not inherently imply the presence of hope.

Some interpret this verse as implying that angels are superior to humans, but this interpretation isn’t entirely accurate. The verse simply points out that angels are above those humans who are sinful and lack faith, as it’s within a context of praise, and such individuals don’t share the commendable traits of angels. However, the verse doesn’t make a statement about the standing of angels relative to virtuous and faithful humans. A more in-depth analysis of the nature and status of angels will be addressed in a later section.

وَقَالَ اللَّهُ لاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ إِلَهَيْنِ اثْنَيْنِ إِنَّمَا هُوَ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ فَإِيَّايَ فَارْهَبُونِ ٥١

(16:51) And God said, “Do not take two gods. Indeed, He is one God, so fear only Me (fa-iyyāya farhabūn).”

The word rahba (“fear”) here is the opposite of raghba (“desire”), which means drawing close with affection, as opposed to rahba, just as fear stands in contrast to hope.

This verse relates to the phrase “and to God prostrates…”. Some interpreters believe it connects to “and We have sent down to you the Reminder”, while others think it ties to “Have they not seen what God has created…?”, akin to the common expression “I fed her hay and cold water,” implying “and I gave her cold water to drink.” When viewed in its entirety, the verse could be interpreted as “Have they not seen what God has created and have they not heard what God said: ‘Do not take two gods...’”. However, the interpretation linking it to “and to God prostrates…” is considered more fitting.

The phrase “Do not take two gods” aims to discourage the worship of multiple deities alongside Allah, not just limiting the count to two, but extending the prohibition to adopting any number of gods beyond one. This meaning is reinforced by the subsequent affirmation, “Indeed, He is one God.” The use of “two” as an adjective for “gods” and “one” for “God” in the verse serves to underline this crucial distinction, emphasizing the exclusivity of worshipping a singular God.

To put it more clearly, this verse emphasizes the prohibition of worshipping any entity besides God, regardless of whether it’s one or multiple. Given that the polytheists’ minimum belief in their gods involved at least two, and typically more, the verse uses the number two to illustrate the concept of polytheism. This choice effectively encompasses the prohibition of all forms of polytheism, no matter the number of gods involved.

It is possible that the specific mention of the number two could stem from a prevalent belief among polytheists. Typically, they acknowledged a god of creation and origination, viewed as the source of all other deities, and a distinct god of worship and governance, charged with overseeing and managing worldly affairs. This nuanced interpretation of the verse appears to align more closely with the phrases that follow, (reflecting this dualistic concept of divinity common in polytheistic traditions.)

Consequently, the verse conveys: “Refrain from acknowledging two divine entities, one as the creator and another as the governor and object of worship. Understand that there is solely one God, the creator and the manager, for all acts of governance are intrinsically linked to creation. In recognizing Me as the creator, you inherently acknowledge My authority as the administrator. Hence, worship (and reverence) are exclusively My due. Thus, direct your fear and worship solely towards Me.”

This explanation sheds light on the significance of the phrase “so fear only Me” that follows the earlier statement, demonstrating a nuanced form of reasoning in the Qur’an. The arrangement in the Arabic verse, where the object “Me” precedes the verb “fear,” underscores the call for an exclusive focus on God. This structure implies a profound shift in perspective for the audience, not just a reduction of their multitude of gods to a singular one. The Quraysh, in particular, were accustomed to worshiping idols, not God, rationalizing that true worship stems from understanding, which they believed was unattainable with the Supreme God. Instead, they venerated esteemed beings in creation, like angels, and select jinn and humans, whom they credited with managing worldly matters. Their belief was that by worshiping these beings, they could secure blessings, assuming these entities held sway over earthly affairs.

The command “so fear only Me” essentially serves as an allegory for “worship Me alone”. This application arises because the preceding context discusses the universal prostration of all beings, intrinsically linked to worship and the fear of the angels. As previously elaborated, the fear expressed by the angels stems from God’s majestic presence, not from the dread of punishment. The underlying message here mirrors that sentiment, emphasizing worship and reverence towards God alone.

وَلَهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ وَلَهُ الدِّينُ وَاصِبًا أَفَغَيْرَ اللَّهِ تَتَّقُونَ ٥٢

(16:52) And to Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth, and to Him is the religion (dīn) perpetually (wāṣiban). Do you then fear other than God?

Al-Rāghib in his Mufradāt states: “The term wāṣib (“perpetual”) means a chronic, incurable illness. The verb waṣaba means someone has fallen ill, and to call someone wāṣib means they are ill. In the verb form, it conveys the same meaning, as in awṣabahu kadhā means an event made the object of the verb sick, and yatawaṣṣab means to suffer pain. God says, For them is a lasting punishment (adhāb wāṣib) (), and also, to Him is the religion perpetually (wāṣiban). Therefore, this verse is a threat to those who adopted two gods, and warns them of a severe, everlasting punishment.

“Religion” (dīn) in this verse means obedience, and wāṣib means permanently. It is the right of humanity that they should perpetually obey God in all circumstances, just as the angels were described as, They do not disobey God in what He commands them and do what they are commanded. The phrase waṣaba waṣūban means to become permanent, and waṣaba al-dīn means the religion became obligatory. A wāṣib desert is one that is so vast it seems endless.”

Therefore, the present verse and the one following it argue for God’s oneness in divinity, in the sense of rightful worship, stating that religion is solely for Him and no one else has the right to legislate religious laws or be obeyed by people. Thus, this verse and the following are in response to the denial of polytheists, who denied this fact.

Hence, the statement, And to Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth underscores God’s unparalleled Lordship, indicating that everything within the heavens and earth, in the most genuine sense of ownership, is God’s domain. Every element of the known cosmos, encompassing all its characteristics and actions, comes into being through His essence, is brought into existence by Him, and is manifested through His revelation. This connection is so profound that it remains unbroken at any moment. In this manner, entities exist due to God, akin to how possessions exist in relation to their owner. They are indeed His possessions, immutable and non-transferable, much like how one inherently owns their senses, such as sight and hearing.

In matters of faith, God Almighty reigns supreme over the world. It’s unfathomable to consider that God, as the world’s true Owner, would permit another entity to independently govern and exert influence, thereby detaching the rightful Owner from His own creation. Being the Lord of the Worlds inherently demands reverence and submission, for the title ‘Lord’ signifies the ultimate Owner and Manager.

The clause, ...and to Him is the religion perpetually signifies that religion eternally belongs to God. Given that God Almighty is the sovereign of the universe, with complete ownership and governance over all its aspects, it’s essential that human conduct aligns with His directives, aimed at leading humanity to its ultimate prosperity. The framework and strategy He employs for human governance, referred to as ‘religion’ in the Qur’an, necessitates that He alone has the authority to institute and decree His laws. Therefore, He is the sole proprietor of religion, as He has declared, and to Him is the religion perpetually. It falls upon Him to legislate what promotes human well-being, as He asserts, With Allah rests guidance to the straight path ().

Various interpretations have been proposed for the term ‘dīn’ in this context. Some understand it as obedience, others view it as sovereignty, and there are those who consider it to mean recompense. Each interpretation is backed by its own reasoning, evident to those who reflect deeply. However, the most fitting interpretation, especially when considering the verse in the broader context of affirming God’s singular sovereignty and the establishment of religion through prophetic revelation, aligns with the explanation we have provided.

The phrase, Do you then fear other than God? is a rhetorical question, essentially negating the notion of fearing others. It appears to draw from the preceding statements, essentially questioning: Given these circumstances, do you still find yourselves revering or obeying anyone apart from God?

وَمَا بِكُم مِّن نِّعْمَةٍ فَمِنَ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ إِذَا مَسَّكُمُ الضُّرُّ فَإِلَيْهِ تَجْأَرُونَ ٥٣

(16:53) And whatever blessing you have, it is from God. Then, when harm touches you, unto Him you cry for help (tajʾarūn).

This verse further clarifies the unity of God in His Lordship, addressing and critiquing the polytheists for their beliefs and self-made laws. It sets the stage for the verses that follow, which continue to focus on this theme.

Here, ‘harm’ denotes distress or adversity, resulting from the lack of a beneficial blessing crucial for human well-being. The term tajʾarūn is likened to the distress calls of wild animals. The expression unto Him you cry for help serves as a metaphorical depiction of prayer, supplication, and the act of seeking assistance, drawing a parallel with the instinctual cries of animals in distress.

The assertion, And whatever blessing you have, it is from God is a broad, well-supported statement, grounded in evidence rather than mere assertion. The rationale behind this claim has been laid out in earlier verses. Moreover, the audience of this message, whoever they may be, recognize this truth, as evidenced by their instinctual turn to God for supplication in times of distress. This natural inclination to seek assistance from the Cause of causes during periods of difficulty underscores a fundamental human trait.

The verse conveys that every blessing you enjoy is a testament to God’s grace, a fact you’re well aware of. In times of suffering, it’s you who earnestly seek and call upon Him, directing your pleas and cries solely to Him, and not to others. If there were another sanctuary, even just once, you would naturally seek it, but you consistently do not, and will not. Thus, it is undeniably God who grants your blessings and alleviates your hardships. Given this, the question arises: why then do you not fully embrace and adhere to worship and obedience to Him?

In moments of extreme adversity and insurmountable challenges, the act of reaching out to God Almighty through earnest prayers and pleas is a universally recognized necessity. This is true even for those who do not profess a belief in God; during such critical times, they often discover that their hope, rather than diminishing, is redirected towards something unseen. The very presence of hope implies it relies on a significant presence, indicating an entity worthy of that hope. Similarly, emotional states that involve a connection, such as love, hatred, intent, aversion, or desire, necessitate an external focal point. Without something external to direct these feelings towards, such emotions would have no basis for manifestation. This principle is applicable universally, underscoring the inherent dependency and interconnectedness of all beings that are capable of forming relationships.

Hence, the existence of hope and expectation within the human spirit amidst severe trials, even when all visible supports fail, is itself a testament to a prevailing cause beyond these broken links. This enduring cause remains untouched by life’s upheavals and consistently connected to humanity, immune to vanishing, fading, or being forgotten.

This profound realization is ingrained in the human essence, although it may be overshadowed by external influences or the allure of the material world. Yet, in moments of deep crisis, when every conventional remedy fails and every avenue to relief vanishes, revealing a stark reality devoid of distractions, this intrinsic truth emerges unmistakably. In such moments of utter isolation, the human heart gravitates towards this enduring truth, recognizing it as the ultimate source, the cause beyond all causes – and that is God, the Exalted.

This fundamental truth resides within individuals, deeply rooted in their inherent nature, though it may be obscured by external influences or the allure of the material world. Yet, when an individual is engulfed by crises, finding themselves devoid of all conventional solutions and bereft of any path to relief, with every known cause and remedy eclipsed by overwhelming adversity, a stark clarity emerges. In this void, where nothing remains to distract or occupy the heart, the truth, previously veiled by external distractions and unrecognized by the individual, reveals itself vividly. In these moments of profound isolation, the heart instinctively reaches out to this enduring truth, recognizing it as the paramount cause, the ultimate source of hope and solace—and that is God, the Exalted.

ثُمَّ إِذَا كَشَفَ الضُّرَّ عَنكُمْ إِذَا فَرِيقٌ مِّنكُم بِرَبِّهِمْ يُشْرِكُونَ ٥٤

(16:54) Then, when He removes the harm from you, behold, a group among you associates others with their Lord.

Here begins the reproach and rebuke of the polytheists, leading eventually to a threat of divine punishment, which they deserve. The removal of harm, through their cries for help and instinctive return to their Creator, should have led them to recognize Him as the only Lord. However, even after the reality of the matter was made clear to them through the alleviation of their troubles and the descent of mercy, a group among them still clung to external causes, returning to their former idolatry. The vices in their hearts were reawakened and strengthened, desires blinded them, and they once again associated others with God. One of the entities they associated as partners were these very external causes. The meaning of the verse is clear.

This marks the beginning of a reproach and rebuke of the polytheists, ultimately leading to a warning of deserved divine retribution. Ideally, the lifting of their distress, prompted by their instinctual pleas to their Creator, should have steered them towards acknowledging Him as the only Lord. Yet, despite the evident truth revealed through the relief of their hardships and the outpouring of divine mercy, some persisted in their old ways, reverting to idolatry. The re-emergence of vices in their hearts, the blinding force of desires, led them back to attributing divine qualities to other beings or things. The meaning of the verse is clear.

لِيَكْفُرُواْ بِمَا آتَيْنَاهُمْ فَتَمَتَّعُواْ فَسَوْفَ تَعْلَمُونَ ٥٥

(16:55) being unthankful (li-yakfurū) for what We have given them. So let them enjoy. Soon they shall know!

In this context, the lām at the beginning of the sentence is used to indicate purpose. It implies that the polytheists’ act of idolatry was aimed at denying the blessings bestowed by God and showing ingratitude for the relief provided from their adversities.

If the polytheists’ idolatry is perceived as a means to deny divine blessings, it’s because their sole aim seems to be disregarding the benevolence of God and neglecting gratitude towards Him. Their deep immersion in the material realm has entrenched a materialistic worldview in their hearts, leading them to attribute blessings to tangible causes, a belief firmly ingrained in their psyche. This conviction acts as a thick veil, obstructing their inherent recognition of the unity of their God in His lordship. Faced with any blessing, they recall only the immediate source, overlooking the Causer of causes, God Almighty. As a result, they find themselves beholden to these earthly sources, anxious over their potential loss, yet display no such submission, humility, or concern towards God. Hence, their actions seemingly reflect nothing but a persistent denial of God’s favors and a refusal to offer Him due gratitude.

Therefore, the denial of the Almighty God is their general aim in every situation they find themselves in and in every action they undertake. If, after the revelation of harm and the lifting of their afflictions, they still practice polytheism, becoming devoted and submissive to other deities, it is to deny God’s blessings. As their denial is persistent and they are obstinate against God, they provoke His wrath, despite His declaration: If you are grateful, I will surely give you more; but if you are ungrateful, My punishment is indeed severe (). Hence, the address is shifted from the Prophet to them, who until now were referred to in the third-person only, and speaking directly to them, it is said: So enjoy yourselves; soon you will know.

Thus, rejecting the Almighty God stands as their overarching motive in every circumstance they encounter and every action they undertake. If they persist in their polytheistic practices, showing devotion and submission to other entities even after their hardships are alleviated, it’s essentially an act of denying God’s benevolence. Their steadfast denial and defiance against God invite His displeasure, contrary to His assurance: If you are grateful, I will surely give you more; but if you are ungrateful, My punishment is indeed severe (). Consequently, the narrative shifts from discussing them in the third-person to addressing them directly (instead of the Prophet), making it clear with the statement: So enjoy yourselves; soon you will know.

The verse deliberately omits detailing what pleasures are to be enjoyed, thereby encapsulating all worldly indulgences. This omission suggests that whatever worldly attachments they foster, they will ultimately face accountability for them on the Day of Judgment, where none of these will offer them any benefit or reward. Similarly, the lack of specificity about what they will ‘soon know’ is intentional, leaving the exact nature of their impending punishment undisclosed. This obscurity ensures that the consequence, when it arrives, will be unexpected and unforeseen by the polytheists, intensifying the impact and severity of the warning.

Certain commentators interpret the lām in the phrase, being unthankful as the lām of command, implying a threat that denotes an element of improbability. Nonetheless, this interpretation seems somewhat convoluted.

وَيَجْعَلُونَ لِمَا لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ نَصِيبًا مِّمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ تَاللَّهِ لَتُسْأَلُنَّ عَمَّا كُنتُمْ تَفْتَرُونَ ٥٦

(16:56) To what they do not know (mā lā yaʿlamūn), they attribute a share of what We have provided them. By Allah, you will surely be questioned concerning what you used to fabricate.

Commentators note that this verse extends the list of the polytheists’ sins highlighted in preceding verses. It suggests, “Beyond what has already been mentioned, the polytheists also engaged in the act of allocating a share to entities about which they had no true understanding.”

In the phrase mā lā yaʿlamūn, the word mā is used in a relative sense, pertaining to the deities of the polytheists. The pronoun “they” denotes the polytheists themselves, and the direct object of “what they do not know” is implied rather than explicitly stated. The essence of the statement is: “The polytheists allocate a share of the provisions We have given them to their gods, oblivious to the fact that these gods possess neither the power to harm nor to benefit.”

This assigning refers to the offerings they made to their idols. In Sūrah al-An’am, this is described as follows: And they assign to God from what He has created of crops and livestock a share and say, “This is for God,” by their claim, “and this is for our ‘partners.’” But what is for their ‘partners’ does not reach God, and what is for God, it reaches their ‘partners.’ Evil is what they rule (). This is the explanation given for the verse, but it is somewhat overwrought.

Another possible explanation is that this part follows directly from associates others with their Lord, implying: “Among you are those who attribute partners to their Lord and dedicate a portion of what We have bestowed upon them to entities they do not truly understand.” In this context, “what they do not know” alludes to the superficial reasons they believe to have autonomous effects, despite lacking genuine understanding of these causes’ nature and being unaware that these supposed causes cannot reliably inflict harm or offer benefit, as evidenced by occasions when they observe no effect from these causes.

This verse indicates that the polytheists credited parts of their sustenance to apparent causes, despite essentially viewing their provisions as independent of these causes, and not truly acknowledging God as the provider. This contradiction reveals that, deep down, they recognized God’s role in their provision. This is evident from earlier verses mentioning their pleas to God during hardships. Acknowledging this, it seems they perceived these visible sources as co-contributors alongside God in providing sustenance, allocating a share of their provisions to these causes. Hence, following the reprimand and reproach directed at them, they are sternly warned with: By Allah, you will surely be questioned concerning what you used to fabricate.

وَيَجْعَلُونَ لِلَّهِ الْبَنَاتِ سُبْحَانَهُ وَلَهُم مَّا يَشْتَهُونَ ٥٧

(16:57) And they attribute to Allah daughters—exalted is He—and for themselves what they desire.

This passage reproaches the polytheists for their baseless and ill-informed choice, elevating their status while demeaning their Lord. They presumptuously assigned daughters to God, which they themselves regarded with disdain, preferring sons for themselves.

Therefore, the statement, And they attribute to Allah daughters—exalted is He signifies that the polytheists identified certain goddesses as divine females, proclaiming them as God’s daughters. As noted by some commentators, tribes such as Khuzāʿah and Kinānah held the belief that angels were God’s daughters.

In Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Sabian idolatry, many deities, consisting of angels and jinn, were worshiped, all of whom were believed to be female and considered to be the daughters of God. The Qur’an also mentions that they regarded angels, who are the servants of the Most Merciful, as female And they made the angels, who are servants of the Most Merciful, females (), and it also says: And they attribute between Him and the jinn a lineage ().

In the practices of Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Sabian idol worship, numerous deities, including angels and jinn, were worshiped, all presumed to be female and deemed as God’s daughters. The Qur’an references this belief, noting that angels, servants of the Most Merciful, were considered female as stated in And they made the angels, who are servants of the Most Merciful, females (), and also highlights, And they attribute between Him and the jinn a lineage (), (indicating the perceived familial ties between God and the jinn.)

Imam Fakhr al-Rāzī provides insight into why polytheists viewed angels as female and dubbed them daughters of God: Polytheists likened angels to women because both are concealed from human sight. This analogy extended to their perception of the sun—shams—as feminine, attributing its hidden disk to the intensity of its light which obscures visibility, similar to how veiled women remain unseen. However, this rationale doesn’t universally apply to all unseen entities. Thus, the fact that jinn, also invisible, are not regarded as feminine should not lead to confusion or contradiction in this context.

Others have rationalized the depiction of angels as female by noting their invisibility and intangibility, drawing parallels to daughters, who are often closely guarded and placed in secure, esteemed environments by men. Unlike angels, jinn, though also not visible, are concealed differently.

Yet, these two perspectives are speculative at best. A deeper look into the various forms of polytheism, as explored in other sections of this book, reveals that such beliefs were not unique to the Arabs. Instead, the concept of deifying female entities as divine daughters traces back to ancient polytheistic traditions in India, Egypt, Babylon, Greece, and Rome.

Delving into the core beliefs of idol worshippers, it’s evident that they viewed angels as the source of all that’s beneficial and jinn as the harbingers of all evil, venerating them as gods accordingly. They revered angels, hoping for their benevolence, and dreaded jinn, fearing their evil. To the idolaters, these entities represented two fundamental forces in the universe: one active, the other passive. They interpreted the interaction between these forces as akin to marriage, designating the active force as the ‘father’ and the passive as the ‘mother,’ with their ‘children’ being the outcome of this union. These ‘offspring’ were then divided into sons and daughters, with some deities being referred to as mothers and daughters, and others as fathers and sons.

Therefore, if some Arab polytheists said that all angels are the daughters of God, they were merely imitating ancient polytheistic beliefs, a blind imitation without understanding those beliefs.

Regarding the phrase: and for themselves what they desire, it appears from the context that this phrase is connected to the phrase And they attribute to Allah daughters. The implied meaning is: “And they assign for themselves what they desire, meaning they assigned daughters to God, believing angels to be God’s daughters, and for themselves, they desired sons. This is why they buried their daughters alive, preferring for God what they themselves disliked.”

Some have said that the phrase what they desire is a postponed subject and “for themselves” is a preceding predicate. This phrase is linked to the act of assigning, and according to this explanation, the statement is meant to mock or suppress.

They then explain that it is not appropriate for the phrase And for them is what they desire to be linked to And they attribute to Allah daughters because it goes against the rules of grammar. The rule is that a transitive verb, whether inherently transitive or made transitive by a preposition, never takes its connected subject pronoun as its object—neither directly nor with a preposition—unless something intervenes. For example, if Zayd hits himself, one does not say “Zayd hit him”, or “You hit you.” Equally, one does not say when Zayd is angry with himself “Zayd became angry with him” or “You became angry with you.” However, one can use it when the verb is doubly transitive, for example: “Zayd thought he was strong.”

Therefore, if the phrase And for them is what they desire is connected to And they attribute to Allah daughters, it should have been said: “And they assign to God the daughters, exalted is He, and for themselves what they desire.” Since it is not phrased this way, it must be concluded that the second phrase is connected to the act of assigning, and as mentioned, the phrase “what they desire” is a subject that comes after its predicate, and the word for them is a predicate mentioned earlier. The implied meaning of the statement is: “And they assign to God daughters—exalted is He—and what they desire for themselves—they designated daughters for God and whatever they wished for themselves.”

However, the truth of the matter is that this rule only needs to be followed where its absence would lead to confusion for the reader or listener, and that the insertion of a preposition between the two pronouns serves as a separation, as in the verse: And shake toward yourself the trunk of the palm tree (), and also: and keep your arms drawn in awe to your sides (). Some commentators have outright rejected this rule and have argued against it appearing in these two verses. They have provided other responses to the mentioned commentator’s statement, which are not mentioned here as they are not necessary. Readers can refer to detailed commentaries for more information.

وَإِذَا بُشِّرَ أَحَدُهُمْ بِالأُنثَى ظَلَّ وَجْهُهُ مُسْوَدًّا وَهُوَ كَظِيمٌ ٥٨

(16:58) And when one of them is given tidings of a female, his face becomes darkened, and he is filled with suppressed rage (kaẓīm).

The darkening of a person’s face and of their countenance means becoming angry. Kaẓīm refers to someone who suppresses their sorrow and anger. The sentence under discussion is adverbial, meaning that when they attributed daughters to God, they did so at the same time as, if someone was informed that his wife had given birth to a daughter, his face would turn dark with anger, and he would suppress his anger.

يَتَوَارَى مِنَ الْقَوْمِ مِن سُوءِ مَا بُشِّرَ بِهِ أَيُمْسِكُهُ عَلَى هُونٍ أَمْ يَدُسُّهُ فِي التُّرَابِ أَلاَ سَاء مَا يَحْكُمُونَ ٥٩

(16:59) He hides (yatawārā) from the people out of distress at the news he has been brought: shall he retain it in humiliation (huwan), or bury it (yadussu-hu) in the ground! Look! Evil is the judgment that they make.

Tawārā means to turn away or to hide, derived from the root warā, and the word huwan signifies humiliation and degradation, while dass means to conceal or hide.

The verse illustrates that upon hearing the news of a daughter’s birth, idolaters would react with intense displeasure, their faces darkening with rage, as they grappled with the societal stigma attached to this event. Faced with the choice of accepting the perceived dishonor of raising a daughter or resorting to the heinous practice of infanticide, they often chose the latter, a custom deeply ingrained in their society. Prior to childbirth, they would prepare a pit, and upon discovering the newborn was female, they would cruelly dispose of her in the pit, covering it to seal her fate. This barbaric action stemmed from fears of financial hardship and the concern that their daughters, in times of poverty, might attract the attention of those deemed unworthy, compelling them to commit such atrocities.

The abhorrent tradition of burying daughters alive began after a conflict between the Banī Tamīm tribe and the Persian King, during which many women from the tribe were captured by the Persian forces and taken as slaves. When a truce was eventually reached, the Banī Tamīm demanded the return of their captives. The Persian authorities offered the women a choice to either return to their tribe or remain at the court. Several daughters chose to stay, which deeply infuriated the men of Banī Tamīm. In response, they resolved to bury any future daughters alive, initiating this gruesome practice. This method was subsequently adopted by other tribes, leading to the widespread acceptance of infanticide as a customary practice.

The judgment referred to in the phrase, Evil is the judgment that they make critiques the assertion: “Daughters are for God, and sons are for us.” This critique doesn’t imply they genuinely valued sons over daughters; instead, it highlights their mindset that anything undesirable was attributed to God, while what they favored remained theirs.

Some commentators interpret this judgment as the perceived duty to kill their daughters, believing that raising daughters would bring shame and dishonor. Nevertheless, the initial interpretation is more consistent with the subsequent verse.

لِلَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالآخِرَةِ مَثَلُ السَّوْءِ وَلِلَّهِ الْمَثَلُ الأَعْلَىَ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ ٦٠

(16:60) For those who do not believe in the Hereafter is the description of evil (mathal al-sūʾ), and for God is the highest description, and He is the Almighty, the Wise.

Mathal means description, and if famous proverbs are called mathals, it is because they are descriptions that circulate in languages, appearing in appropriate and similar contexts.

The term sūʾ translates to “evil,” and its combination with mathal broadens the scope of description, highlighting that characteristics can be categorized based on their nature: either positive or negative. This dichotomy gives rise to two types of examples: positive examples (mathal ḥasan) and negative examples (mathal sūʾ). These traits can stem from inherent qualities, such as beauty or ugliness, over which an individual has no control, or from one’s deliberate actions, exemplified by the virtues of fairness and the flaws of unfairness. Human judgment reserves praise or criticism for those qualities within our control, disregarding innate characteristics. Praise, then, is directed towards actions deemed virtuous by human nature, encouraging behaviors that lead to happiness, while criticism targets the omission of such actions. This distinction between good and evil is fundamental to true religion. It becomes clear that only the anticipation of severe punishment and the assurance of being held accountable deter individuals from wrongdoing. Mere disapproval proves ineffective as a deterrent, as societal norms evolve, making once-condemned acts acceptable, thereby stripping them of their perceived negativity.

This passage highlights that the core factor preventing individuals from engaging in reprehensible actions is the firm belief in the Afterlife, coupled with the certainty of facing accountability and its consequences. Such a conviction safeguards against dishonor and ignominy, serving as the fundamental force that corrects and gives meaning to human behavior. It is this belief that guides individuals towards the pursuit of happiness, exerting an influence unmatched by any other principle, including monotheism (tawḥīd), despite its status as the pinnacle of knowledge.

The saying of the Almighty God points to this matter, stating: And do not follow desire, lest it divert you from the way of God. Indeed, those who stray from the way of God will have a severe punishment because they forgot the Day of Reckoning ().

According to this verse, disbelief in the Afterlife and the underestimation of accountability and divine retribution stand at the core of all sinful behavior and its underlying causes. In contrast, belief in the Afterlife is the foundation of all virtuous acts and the wellspring of all blessings and moral excellence. Consequently, every negative attribute and dishonor experienced by a person can be traced back to neglecting the reality of the Afterlife, while every positive quality and praiseworthy behavior one exhibits is rooted in the mindfulness of the Afterlife.

In light of the discussed context, the nuanced meaning behind the phrase “For those who do not believe in the Hereafter is the description of evil” becomes evident. While earlier verses categorize them as polytheists, the focus shifts to their disbelief in the Hereafter when addressing the nature of their evil.

Hence, individuals who reject the concept of an Afterlife embody the essence of all negative characteristics and actions, as their fundamental flaw lies in the rejection of the Afterlife itself. This disbelief is the benchmark of their inherent negativity. Should believers in the Afterlife occasionally exhibit undesirable behaviors, it is attributed to a momentary lapse in remembering the Day of Judgment, a lapse for which the disbelief in the Afterlife is ultimately responsible.

The discussion so far has focused on negative traits that are universally recognized and condemned by reason. However, there are also negative aspects which, although not condemned by reason, are nonetheless viewed negatively by society. These include being female—a notion held by some—having daughters, experiencing financial hardship, sickness, death, annihilation, incapability, and ignorance. Such traits are not unique to believers or non-believers but are universally encountered. Additionally, characteristics derived from rational thought, like need, poverty, lack, non-being, and potentiality, are not limited to humans but apply to all entities capable of being conceived. In this context, non-believers are associated with all forms of negative traits and conditions. Some of these negative aspects are unique to them, others are shared with believers, and yet others are universal, affecting all entities, as previously explained.

God the Exalted transcends all negative traits and examples previously discussed. These adverse examples arise from actions deemed sinful and objectionable by reason, all of which fall under the broad category of injustice. The divine nature of God is such that He does not commit injustice, as He Himself declares: Your Lord does not wrong anyone () and further affirms: And He is the Wise, the All-Knowing (). (This clarity underscores God’s absolute purity from any form of injustice, highlighting His supreme wisdom and omniscience.)

Therefore, every judgment He makes and every action He takes is determined by wisdom and the prevailing order he instituted in the universe, such that nothing else could take its place.

Regarding those negative traits previously discussed—those not found objectionable by reason but naturally disliked, as well as those identified as immoral through rational thought—God is supremely transcendent above them. This is due to God the Almighty embodying absolute perfection, with His realm being devoid of any flaws. He is the Omnipotent, with unrivaled power, making any form of weakness incompatible with His nature. Omniscience belongs to Him, leaving no room for ignorance. He embodies pure life, rendering death and the prospect of non-existence irrelevant to Him. Free from any form of deficiency and non-being, the limitations and vulnerabilities typical of physical existence cannot be ascribed to Him. The Qur’anic affirmations of these truths are both abundant and unequivocal, obviating the need for their detailed enumeration here.

Hence, God stands supremely apart from all negative traits that define creation, embodying sanctity and purity beyond comparison. Yet, this transcendence extends even to the virtues and commendable qualities as perceived in others. Attributes such as life, knowledge, power, nobility, greatness, and majesty, as they manifest in created beings, do not align with their divine counterparts in God the Almighty. While these qualities in creatures are limited and marred by flaws, dependency, and imperfection, in God, they exist in a state of flawless and boundless perfection, untainted by any form of deficiency or non-existence. Thus, God’s existence is characterized by an eternal life untouched by death, an omnipotence free from weakness or weariness, an omniscience unblemished by ignorance, and a majesty devoid of any disgrace.

At this juncture, the profound meaning behind God the Exalted’s declarations about Himself becomes evident. When He states: His is the loftiest description in the heavens and the earth () and to Him belong the Best Names (), what are we to understand? This indicates that while qualities can vary in their level of virtue, ranging from lesser to greater and beyond, the supreme epitome of excellence is uniquely attributed to God Almighty. Similarly, names encompass both positive and negative connotations, with the positive ones varying in their degrees of virtue. The pinnacle of these virtues, the most exalted, is reserved solely for God the Almighty.

Through the clarification provided, we come to grasp the essence of God’s supreme exemplar. The phrase, and for God is the highest description is intended to ascribe the utmost level of excellence uniquely to God the Almighty. It signifies that within the realm of examples, it is not the negative but the positive ones that pertain to God, and among these positive examples, the absolute highest is reserved exclusively for God the Exalted.

This elucidation further clarifies that the supreme exemplar, uniquely attributed to God the Almighty as previously discussed, involves negating any negative qualities from Him, as He Himself has stated: There is nothing like unto Him (). This negation extends to the absence of limitations and flaws within His affirmed noble attributes. The declaration, And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise reinforces and elucidates this concept, signifying that all forms of honor exclusively belong to Him, untouched by any form of disgrace. This stems from the understanding that disgrace merely represents a lack of honor, and an entity embodying complete honor cannot be imagined as deficient in it. Furthermore, all forms of wisdom are His, precluding any association with ignorance, for ignorance is simply the lack of wisdom, and it has been established that He is devoid of any deficiency in wisdom.

Given that neither disgrace nor ignorance can exist within His divine realm, God is inherently free from any traits of inadequacy, any qualities warranting censure or disapproval, or any instances of negativity. In contrast, the essence of a disbeliever is marked by disgrace and ignorance. As such, traits of deficiency are fundamental to their nature, positioning the disbeliever as a manifestation of negativity.

Contrary to the disbeliever, the believer, despite their inherent deficiencies and ignorance, is safeguarded under God’s protection. God has bestowed upon them His honor and guided them out of ignorance with His spirit, as evidenced by His words: And God is the ally of the believers (), And for God is the honor, and for His Messenger, and for the believers (), and Those are the ones whom God has written faith in their hearts and strengthened them with a spirit from Him ().

وَلَوْ يُؤَاخِذُ اللَّهُ النَّاسَ بِظُلْمِهِم مَّا تَرَكَ عَلَيْهَا مِن دَابَّةٍ وَلَكِن يُؤَخِّرُهُمْ إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى فَإِذَا جَاءَ أَجَلُهُمْ لاَ يَسْتَأْخِرُونَ سَاعَةً وَلاَ يَسْتَقْدِمُونَ٦١

(16:61) Were Allah to take mankind to task for their wrongdoing, He would not leave any creature (dābba) upon it. But He respites them until a specified time; so when their time comes they shall not defer it by a single hour nor shall they advance it.

The pronoun “it” refers to the earth, a detail implicitly understood through the mention of “mankind,” making an explicit reference to “on the earth” unnecessary.

It’s a plausible explanation that, within this context, dābba specifically denotes humans, given that humans are indeed moving creatures. Therefore, the verse conveys the notion: “Should God choose to exact punishment on people for their injustices—to the extent that every perpetrator of injustice is penalized—then no human being would be left walking the earth. This scenario would unfold as wrongdoers would be eradicated due to their injustices, and the virtuous, including prophets and impeccable saints, would never come into existence, as their forebears would have been annihilated.”

Nevertheless, commentators, acknowledging the broad scope of the term dābba, interpret it to encompass all living beings, both humans and animals. From their perspective, the verse suggests: “Should God decide to penalize the oppressors for their wrongdoings, He would annihilate all human beings along with animals.” This interpretation raises the question of why animals, innocent of any wrongdoing, should suffer destruction due to human injustice, suggesting that their demise would be a collateral consequence of the injustice of humans.

A compelling response to this objection, as refined from suggestions by some scholars, posits that the eradication of one generation of humans precludes the birth of subsequent generations, including prophets. The extinction of humanity from the earth would inevitably lead to the demise of other species as well, given that their existence is intertwined with human survival and welfare. This concept is supported by the verse: He created for you all that is on the earth (), (indicating that other creatures’ existence serves human needs and purposes.)

Certainly, alternative interpretations have been suggested to address the critique concerning the broad application of the term “creature” in the verse. However, these interpretations do not substantially enhance the understanding, so for a deeper analysis, readers are encouraged to consult detailed commentaries. We will not elaborate on these alternatives further in this discussion.

Some commentators have utilized this verse to contend that prophets are fallible, interpreting the text’s implication that if God were to annihilate humans for their injustices, no one would survive on earth, as suggesting that prophets too commit injustices. However, this interpretation misreads the verse’s intent. The verse simply states that should God decide to obliterate humanity for its injustices, the entire human race would face extinction. This does not infer that every individual would be punished for their personal wrongdoing. It’s plausible that the majority might be eradicated due to their own injustices, while a minority could be lost in the fallout of their community’s destruction. Thus, the verse does not suggest that every person, including prophets and those deemed infallible, is guilty of injustice.

In response, it has been argued that the term “mankind” in the verse specifically targets the oppressors within humanity, as indicated by the phrase “for their wrongdoing.” Therefore, this does not encompass the Infallibles in any way.

Others might respond that “wrongdoing” here is broader including any form of disobedience, defined as actions that diverge from the directives of the Almighty. This explanation could extend to actions that are less preferable, contrary to advisory commands, and might apply to prophets as well. This perspective is supported by the instance of Adam and his wife, who acknowledged, Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves (). Similar errors are attributed to other prophets, leading to the adage, “The good deeds of the righteous are considered faults for those who are close to God” (ḥasanāt al-abrār sayyiʾāt al-muqarrabīn). This suggests that actions deemed virtuous for the righteous may be viewed as shortcomings for those nearer to God. Thus, the usage of ‘injustice’ in the verse being discussed doesn’t necessarily classify prophets as sinners, in the sense of committing acts of disobedience against God’s commands.

Another group of commentators suggests that the total annihilation mentioned could be exemplified by an act such as God withholding rain. In such a scenario, it’s clear that both the righteous and the wicked would suffer alike, illustrating the principle that when divine retribution is meted out, it doesn’t distinguish between the virtuous and the sinful—much like “fire consumes both the wet and the dry.” Yet, this form of punishment represents a tribulation and hardship for God’s adversaries, whereas for the faithful, it serves as a trial and an opportunity to augment their divine reward.

However, each of these three explanations presents its own set of limitations.

The first explanation is problematic because if “mankind” is interpreted to exclusively denote oppressors, logically, only they would face destruction, as some interpretations have indeed suggested. This then raises the question of why the infallibles would be subject to destruction. Furthermore, this interpretation does not account for why other creatures would also be destroyed, leaving the assertion that no creature would remain on earth unaddressed.

The second explanation does not hold up well because the verses in question specifically address injustice in the form of polytheism and violations of God’s commands. Expanding the definition of ‘injustice’ to include actions that are less preferable introduces an interpretation that seems disconnected from the verse’s immediate context. This is particularly evident in the phrase, But He respites them until a specified time, which suggests a looming threat and is incongruous with a broader understanding of “injustice.”

Regarding the third explanation, it lacks direct support from the text itself. The idea that divine punishment, like withholding rain, affects both the righteous and the wicked alike, serving as a calamity for the former and a test for the latter, is not explicitly grounded in the verse’s wording.

But He respites them until a specified time; so when their time comes they shall not defer it by a single hour nor shall they advance it—This verse presents evidence for a contingent matter, with the initial conditional clause suggesting this context. It implies that their reckoning is not rushed but is deferred to an appointed time or a predetermined duration. This appointed time is understood differently for individuals, communities, and humanity at large: for individuals, it is their demise; for communities, their extinction; and for all humanity, the sounding of the trumpet signaling the Day of Resurrection. The Qur’an addresses these meanings of the appointed time in various verses. For instance, it states: though there are some of you who die earlier—and that you may complete a specified term (), and elsewhere: And for every nation is a term; when their term comes, they cannot delay it an hour nor can they advance it (), and in another verse: And if it were not for a word that went forth from your Lord, judgment would have been rendered between them at once, and those who have wronged would not have been given respite ().

وَيَجْعَلُونَ لِلَّهِ مَا يَكْرَهُونَ وَتَصِفُ أَلْسِنَتُهُمُ الْكَذِبَ أَنَّ لَهُمُ الْحُسْنَى لاَ جَرَمَ أَنَّ لَهُمُ النَّارَ وَأَنَّهُم مُّفْرَطُونَ ٦٢

(16:62) They attribute to Allah what they dislike, and their tongues assert the lie that the best reward will be theirs. Undoubtedly, the Fire shall be their lot and they will be foremost.

This verse revisits the matter of polytheists assigning daughters to God the Almighty while preferring sons for themselves. It explains: Their act of attributing daughters to God stemmed from their aversion to having daughters themselves, whereas they attributed sons to themselves due to their preference and affection for having sons.

Therefore, the statement, They attribute to Allah what they dislike is specifically about daughters. The following part, and their tongues assert the lie, implies they are spreading falsehoods with their claim that the best rewards await them, implying that those who have sons will receive favorable outcomes. Some interpret “the best reward” as referring to Paradise, under the assumption of the resurrection and the Day of Judgment being real and the prophets’ words being truthful. This notion aligns with the sentiment in the verse: And if We let him taste mercy from Us after some adversity has touched him, he will surely say, “This is due to me, and I do not think the Hour will occur; and if I am returned to my Lord, indeed, for me there will be with Him the best” (). This interpretation would hold merit if not for the concluding remarks of the next verse, which we will explore further.

Undoubtedly, the Fire shall be their lot and they will be foremost (mufraṭūn)—This indicates that their fate is sealed to enter the Fire. The term mufraṭ suggests someone who advances or leads; similarly, ifrāṭ implies an excess in hastening, whereas tafrīṭ represents a lack thereof. The word faraṭ describes a person who moves ahead of a group to arrange necessities like water and shelter. The expression “he sent him ahead” conveys the action of sending someone forward in advance.

The fabrication and their erroneous belief that they can assign to God what is undesirable to them, while securing for themselves what they covet, essentially amounts to presuming they can precede or outpace God Almighty. In response, God clarifies the falsehood of their assumption and the consequence of their deceit, which is the inevitable descent into the Fire. This is encapsulated in the declaration: Undoubtedly, the Fire shall be their lot...

تَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا إِلَى أُمَمٍ مِّن قَبْلِكَ فَزَيَّنَ لَهُمُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَعْمَالَهُمْ فَهُوَ وَلِيُّهُمُ الْيَوْمَ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ ٦٣

(16:63) By Allah, indeed We sent to nations before you, but Satan made their deeds attractive to them. So he is their ally today, and they will have painful punishment

The context suggests that “today” refers to the day of this verse’s revelation, and “Satan being their ally” means their collective adherence to misguidance during the time of revelation. The “promised punishment” is understood to be the punishment of the Day of Judgment, as is apparent in most verses that mention punishment.

The meaning is as follows: “By God, indeed We dispatched Our messengers to nations before you, such as the Jews, Christians, and Magians, and to those not yet extinct like the people of ‘Ad and Thamud. Satan made their deeds appear attractive to them, leading them to follow him and turn away from Our messengers. Thus, he is their guardian today, and they are united in misguidance. And for them, on the Day of Judgment, is a painful punishment.”

Al-Zamakhsharī, based on this reading, has suggested that the pronoun in “their ally” refers to the Quraysh, and the meaning is that Satan adorned the evil deeds of past nations and is today the guardian and protector of the Quraysh. However, the difference in pronouns weakens this possibility.

It is also possible that “nations” refers to extinct past nations, and then the guardianship and leadership of Satan for those nations would be in the realm of Barzakh (the intermediary state after death), where they suffer painful punishment.

Some have said that “today” refers to the entire period of worldly life, and this period is the time of Satan’s guardianship, while the Day of Judgment is the day of punishment.

Others have said that “today” refers to the Day of Judgment, where Satan will have guardianship over them, and it is there that they will have painful punishment. Still, others have said that “today” refers to the day when Satan adorns their deeds, and this expression is a narrative of the past.

However, the first reading seems most appropriate, followed by the second and then the third.

وَمَا أَنزَلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ إِلاَّ لِتُبَيِّنَ لَهُمُ الَّذِي اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ٦٤

(16:64) We did not send down the Book to you except that you may clarify for them what they differ about, and as a guidance and mercy for a people who have faith.

The pronoun “for them” refers to the polytheists, specifically addressing their disputes over true faith and righteous deeds. The aim of this clarification is to conclusively present the truth, effectively completing the argument against them. This reading is supported by the distinction made between the matters of the believers and those of the polytheists, with the believers being mentioned separately as recipients of guidance and mercy, as it is said: and as a guidance and mercy for a people who have faith.

Thus, the essence of the verse is: “The revelation given to you was meant to shed light on the disputes concerning true knowledge and divine commandments. Its purpose was not only to finalize the argument against the disputants but also to act as a beacon of guidance and a blessing of mercy for the believers. Through this revelation, God has laid out His final argument to the disputants, while simultaneously guiding the believers towards the truth and enveloping them in His mercy, as they embrace and follow this truth.”

Examining Narrations

There are a number of narrations which explain the phrase “people of the Reminder” (ahl al-dhikr) in the verse: So ask the people of the reminder if you do not know has been explained as referring to the Prophet’s Household.

1. In al-Kāfī, al-Kulaynī narrates via his chain of narrators from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Kathīr, it is narrated that he said to Imam al-Ṣādiq, “What is meant by the verse, So ask the people of the reminder if you do not know?” He replied, “The reminder is Muḥammad, and we are his people, from whom they should ask...”

Author’s comment: This narration refers to the verse: Indeed, God has sent down to you a reminder, a messenger (), and there are many narrations regarding its meaning.

2. In Tafsīr al-Burhān, from al-Barqī, and he with his chain from Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Abī al-Daylamī from Abī ʿAbd Allāh, it is narrated that he was asked, “What is meant by the verse, So ask the people of the reminder if you do not know?” He replied, “The reminder is the Qur’an, and the family of Muḥammad are the people of the reminder, whom God has commanded people to ask.” It is evident that God never commands people to ask the ignorant, and He Himself has called the Qur’an the reminder and said: (We have sent down the reminder to you so that you may clarify for the people that which has been sent down to them, so that they may reflect () and also said: Indeed it is a reminder for you and for your people, and soon you will be questioned ().

Author’s comment: The Imam’s argument is to establish that the Prophet’s Household are the people of the reminder, and that the reminder is the Qur’an, and its people are they, as they are the community of the messenger of God. The two verses he quoted at the end of his speech are for corroborating this meaning, as has been explicitly stated in other narrations and there are other narrations regarding this meaning as well.

3. In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, from Muḥammad b. Muslim from Imam al-Bāqir, it is narrated that he said: “I asked the Imam about the people who are with us, they think that the people of the reminder in the verse, So ask the people of the reminder... are the Jews and Christians. The Imam replied: ‘If they are the ones, they would call you to their religion and would never tell you the truth, which is the validity of Islam.’ Then he pointed to his chest and said: ‘We are the people of the reminder, and we are the ones from whom people should ask.’ Then he added: ‘The reminder is the Qur’an.’”

Author’s comment: A similar explanation has been narrated from Imam al-Riḍā in the assembly of the ʿAbbāsid Caliph al-Maʾmūn.

As previously mentioned, the address in the verse, as the context suggests, is to the polytheists, the idolaters who were plotting against the prophethood of the Messenger of God. They were commanded to ask the “people of the Reminder,” who are the People of the Book, specifically the Jews, whether God has sent any human messenger to whom He revealed His word. It is evident that since the polytheists did not accept the Prophet himself, it would be meaningless for the Qur’an to tell them to ask the people of the Reminder, as they did not even accept the Qur’an, let alone its people. Thus, we must conclude that the people of the Reminder in the specific context of the verse refers to the People of the Book, especially the Jews.

However, if we disregard the specific context of the verse and take it on its own, then it invokes a general rule that the ignorant, the respondent, and the subject of the response are all general. Any ignorant person who does not know something should ask someone knowledgeable about it. Therefore, “if you do not know” encompasses all true knowledge, and it is addressed to anyone who might not know something about the knowledge, and the one they are commanded to ask are anyone who is knowledgeable about it. And the epitome of the kind of knowledge with which this verse is concerned is the Household of the Messenger of God. Because if “the Reminder” refers to the Messenger of God, as in the verse of Sūrah al-Ṭalāq, then surely “the people of the Reminder” will be his family. And if “the Reminder” refers to the noble Qur’an, as in the verse of Sūrah al-Zukhruf, then in that case, the Qur’an is the remembrance of the Messenger of God and his people—the infallible Imams or the righteous from his people—and he and his people are “the people of the Reminder.” They are the ones whom people are commanded to ask, and the Messenger of God also paired them with the Qur’an in the Tradition of Thaqalayn and commanded people to hold onto both, saying: “They will never separate until they return to me at the Pool...”

One piece of evidence that the words of the Imams in explaining “the people of the Reminder” as the Prophet’s Household, disregarding the specific context of the verse, is that in the narrations, there is no mention of the specific context.

From the above, the invalidity of some objections raised against the aforementioned narrations becomes clear.

One objection is that if “the Reminder” refers to the Messenger of God and “the People of the Reminder” refers to his family, the polytheists did not accept the Prophet to say anything about his family. And in al-Durr al-Manthūr, it is stated that Ibn Mardawayh narrated from Jābir that he said: “The Messenger of God said: ‘It is not appropriate for a scholar to seal his knowledge with silence, nor is it appropriate for the ignorant to remain silent and not ask the knowledgeable, for God Almighty has said: So ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know, so it is incumbent upon every believer to know whether the action he is performing is guided or against guidance.’”

4. In Tafsīr Al-Qummī, concerning the verse, (Did those who plotted evil deeds then feel secure … unexpectedly (), it is narrated from the Imam: “When they go for earning and trade, suddenly the punishment seizes them in that state and regarding Or that He might seize them during their movements, he said it means He seizes them while they are awake.”
5. In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī from Samāʿah from Imam al-Ṣādiq, it is narrated that he said: “I asked about the meaning of wāṣib in the phrase, and to Him is the religion perpetually (wāṣiban), and he replied: ‘It means necessarily.’”
6. And in Maʿānī al-Akhbār with his chain from Ḥannān b. Sudayr from Imam al-Ṣādiq, it is narrated that in the context of a tradition, he said: and for God is the highest description means a description that is without parallel, indescribable, and beyond imagination.
7. In al-Durr al-Manthūr, it is stated that Ibn Mardawayh narrated from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of God said in the interpretation of the verse, Were Allah to take mankind to task for their wrongdoing (): “If God holds me and Jesus son of Mary accountable for our sins”—and in another narration, it is stated as “me and Jesus son of Mary for the crime committed by this thumb and the finger next to it”—“He would indeed punish us and would not be unjust to us.”

Author’s comment: This tradition contradicts the Book of God and the Sunnah of the Messenger, both of which affirm the infallibility of the prophets, and there is no way to interpret this tradition as referring to the omission of a preferable action, as such omission does not incur punishment.

---

1. The verse straightforwardly addresses this tendency to ascribe partners to God, particularly in the form of these very external entities they relied upon in times of distress. (Ed.) ↩︎