Verses 65–77

Chapter 16: Al-Nahl (The Bee) · Printed edition: Volume 24, pp. 123–150

This section of the chapter once again returns to enumerating God’s blessings and deriving monotheism and resurrection from His signs, and reference to the matter of legislation, which concerns prophethood.

Commentary

وَاللَّهُ أَنزَلَ مِنَ السَّمَاء مَاء فَأَحْيَا بِهِ الأَرْضَ بَعْدَ مَوْتِهَا إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لآيَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يَسْمَعُونَ ٦٥

(16:65) Allah sends down water from the sky with which He revives the earth after its death. There is indeed a sign in that for a people who listen.

The purpose of the verse is to call attention to the rejuvenation and greening of the earth after its dormancy and decay in winter. This occurs after the arrival of spring and the spring rains, when the roots and seeds of plants, after a period of dormancy, begin to grow and develop. This itself is a form of life, and although it is a weaker stage compared to animal life, it is still life. Modern scientific findings have also established that plants are composed of life germs, the same germs that exist in animals, although their form and effect are different.

There is indeed a sign in that for a people who listen—‘listening’ here means accepting the words that should be accepted. A rational person, who seeks truth, when hearing something that might be true, listens attentively and retains it. As the Qur’an says: Those who listen to the word and follow the best of it; those are the ones whom God has guided, and those are people of understanding ().

So, for someone who is receptive to accepting the truth, the account of sending rain and reviving the earth after its death serves as a sign and evidence for the matter of resurrection on the Day of Judgment, understanding that He who revives the dead earth can also revive the dead.

وَإِنَّ لَكُمْ فِي الأَنْعَامِ لَعِبْرَةً نُّسْقِيكُم مِّمَّا فِي بُطُونِهِ مِن بَيْنِ فَرْثٍ وَدَمٍ لَّبَنًا خَالِصًا سَائِغًا لِلشَّارِبِينَ ٦٦

(16:66) There is indeed a moral for you in the cattle: We give you to drink of that which is in their bellies from between waste and blood, as pure milk, pleasant (sāʾighan) to those who drink.

The term “waste” refers to the waste that accumulates in the intestines and is collected in the large intestine but is called “dung” when expelled. The term sāʾigh is an active participle of sawgh, which is said when food and drink flow smoothly. It is used when a drinkable liquid is pleasant and goes down the throat easily.

There is indeed a moral for you in the cattle—meaning, in camels, cows, and sheep, there is something that, if you are receptive to learning and heeding, suffices for your admonition and instruction. Then the verse explains this matter, saying: We give you to drink of that which is in their bellies … Here, the pronoun referring to the cattle is singular, which is a case of considering the plural as singular.

From between waste and blood—The milk of animals, which is located near the end of the abdomen, between the legs, and blood, which flows through arteries and veins enveloping both. If milk is described as something situated between bodily waste and blood, it is because these three elements are internally close to each other. This pure and delicious food, milk, is extracted from between the two. As if one would say, “I chose Zayd from among the people and pulled him out,” implying that Zayd and the group were together, even if Zayd was at the edge and not in the center of the group. The idea is to distinguish and separate one from the many.

The verse conveys that from within the cattle’s innards, we are provided with milk, which, remarkably, is produced amidst dung and blood yet remains untainted by both, devoid of their flavor or odor. This milk offers a pleasant drink to its drinkers, standing as a testament for those who reflect upon it. It signifies the vastness of God’s might and the scope of His intent. The One who ensures milk’s purity amidst impurities surely possesses the power to revive humans, regardless of whether their bones have withered or their components have dispersed across the soil.

وَمِن ثَمَرَاتِ النَّخِيلِ وَالأَعْنَابِ تَتَّخِذُونَ مِنْهُ سَكَرًا وَرِزْقًا حَسَنًا إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لآيَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يَعْقِلُونَ ٦٧

(16:67) And of the fruits of date palms and vines, from which you draw intoxication (sukr) and goodly provision. There are indeed signs in that for a people who apply reason.

Al-Rāghib in al-Mufradāt says sukr is the state that affects a person and their intellect, creating a barrier between the person and their intellect. Sakar is anything that intoxicates a person.

In Majmaʿ al-Bayān, al-Ṭabrisī says that sukr comes in four forms:

1. Any drink that causes intoxication.
2. Any food that is tasty. This is based on the poet’s saying: “You made fault-finding of the generous an intoxication (sukr).”
3. Tranquility or calmness, leading to the saying “A tranquil night” (laylah sākirah). This is exemplified in the poet’s line: “Neither free nor tranquil” (wa laysat bi ṭalaq wa lā sākirah) and in the phrase “The wind calmed down” (sakarat al-rīḥ). Another verse says, “And made the eyes of the free men tranquil” (jaʿalat ʿayn al-ḥurūr tusir).
4. The fourth usage of sukr is as a verbal noun from the verb sakira, meaning to become intoxicated or confused. This is used in the phrase “Our vision became blurred (sakirat absaruna).”

The apparent original meaning of sukr is the loss of good sense or consciousness due to the use of substances that induce this state. The other meanings mentioned are derived from this primary sense through forms of metaphor and extension.

The phrase and of the fruits of date palms and vines … is either a nominal sentence attached to, Allah sends down water from the sky …, like the previous verse, There is indeed a moral for you in the cattle …which suggests the meaning of: “God gave you from the fruits of the date palms and grapes”, followed by the statement: you take from it intoxication and good provision.

It is said that the Arabs often leave the relative pronoun mā (“what”, “that which”), implicit, and this can be seen in the verse: And when you see there, you will see bliss and a great dominion (). The intended meaning is: “you will see what is there.” Alternatively, the phrase could be understood as “from the fruits of the date palms and the grapes, there is something you make use of”, based on the view that it is not permissible to omit the relative pronoun and keep its clause, as suggested by the grammarians of Basra.

However, some linguists do not accept the omission of the relative pronoun, leading to the interpretation of this verse as “from the fruits of the date palms and grapes, comes something you make into an intoxicant and a good provision.”

Alternatively, the verse could be read as a verbal sentence attached to “God sends down rain,” meaning “God gave you from the fruits of the date palms and grapes,” and then the separate sentence “you take from it an intoxicant and good provision.”

The meaning of “you take from it an intoxicant and good provision” is that from the mentioned fruits, date palms and grapes, one derives something like wine in its various forms that intoxicates, along with good, clean sustenance like raisins, grape syrup, and other edibles that count as provisions.

The phrase “You take from it intoxicants and good provisions” does not imply that intoxicants are permissible. This noble verse does not intend to declare that intoxicants are lawful or permissible. It does not even suggest that it is commendable to derive intoxicants from the mentioned fruits. Rather, it could be interpreted as condemning this practice because the taking of intoxicants is contrasted with the acquisition of good sustenance, indicating that intoxicants are not considered good sustenance. However, if we do not accept this interpretation, we also do not accept the opposite, as the verse is not primarily about defining what is lawful or unlawful. Its purpose is to enumerate the benefits that humanity at the time derived from these fruits, affirming that all these benefits are divine blessings and lead to the recognition of monotheism. The verse was revealed in Mecca and addressed to the polytheists.

Therefore, the verse does not contain a religious ruling, so we cannot claim that it has been abrogated or not abrogated by the verse that prohibits alcohol. This understanding also invalidates the statement of someone who claimed that this verse was abrogated by a verse in Sūrah al-Māʾidah, according to the narration attributed to Qatādah.

The author of Rūḥ al-Maʿānī has made an unusual statement, saying that interpreting sukr as wine is reported from Ibn Masʿūd, Ibn ʿUmar, Abū Razīn, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, Mujāhid, al-Shaʿbī, Nakhaʿī, Ibn Abī Laylah, Abū Thawr, Kalbī, and Ibn Jubayr, among many others. The verse was revealed in Mecca when wine was lawful, and consumed by sinners, Muslims, and disbelievers alike. Its prohibition occurred in Medina, and the verse O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, sacrificing on stone altars, and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it abrogated it.

Some have argued that the verse in question, although revealed before the prohibition, was not abrogated because sukr does not mean wine but vinegar, as per the language of the people of Ethiopia, or, as reported from Abū ʿUbaydah, it refers to a type of sweet consumed as a snack. The jurists of the Ḥanafī school, believing in the non-abrogation, argue that sukr refers to the amount of alcohol that does not cause intoxication. They base their argument on the fact that God in this verse bestows a favor upon His servants with things He has created for them, and it is logical to bestow favors with things that are lawful, not unlawful. Hence, the mere fact that God has bestowed sukr as a favor is evidence that alcohol, in small amounts that do not cause intoxication, is lawful, while excess leading to intoxication is unlawful

Regarding the statement that wine was prohibited in Medina, we have previously discussed this in detail in Sūrah al-Māʾida, providing evidence that wine was, in fact, prohibited before the Emigration to Medina. One of the well-known Islamic rulings among the polytheists was the prohibition of wine and adultery. The prohibition was revealed in Sūrah Al-Aʿrāf, which was undoubtedly revealed before Sūrah al-Naḥl, and also in Sūrah al-Baqarah and Sūrah al-Nisāʾ, which were revealed before al-Māʾidah.

We mentioned that the purpose of the verse in Sūrah al-Māʾida was to emphasize the prohibition and to reprimand some Muslims who were deviating from this ruling. The narrations support this, and according to Rūḥ al-Maʿānī own words, both Muslims and disbelievers used to consume it. The verses themselves contain expressions supporting this interpretation, such as the phrase: Will you, then, relinquish? ().

As for the claim attributed to Ibn Abbas that sukr means vinegar in the Ethiopian language, this lacks credible evidence. While the Qur’an often uses non-Arabic words like istabraq, jahannam, zaqqum, and others, these are used in contexts where there is no ambiguity or confusion. However, using sukr, which means wine in Arabic but vinegar in Ethiopian, would lead to confusion. It is implausible that a book composed in the most eloquent speech would use the word sukr (from Ethiopian) in a context that discusses vinegar, instead of using the well-established Arabic word khall.

Regarding the view attributed to Abū ʿUbaydah, this has already been addressed earlier in the discussion.

As for the view attributed to the Ḥanafīs, namely that sukr refers to raisins and that the verse indicates the permissibility of consuming a small amount of alcohol that does not cause intoxication because the verse presents it as a divine favor, this is a flawed argument. The verse does not imply favoring people in any way; it simply enumerates blessings, including dates and grapes. Dates and grapes are blessings, not every use people make of them, whether lawful or unlawful. Had all human uses been considered blessings, sukr would not have been contrasted with “good sustenance”, a contrast that implies some form of reprimand or admonition. This is acknowledged by al-Bayḍāwī and others.

Additionally, the verse itself does not specify sukr as being limited to raisins or a drink, nor does it specify a small amount that leads to intoxication, nor anything else. Thus, if the making of sukr was counted among the blessings of God, and the verse indicates its permissibility, you must then concede that the verse explicitly allows all types of alcohol. Why not say this? Moreover, the verse is not abrogated since when the language is one of favor, it does not expire to be abrogated later by another verse. How can it be conceivable for God to count something among His blessings and express favor for it, and then call the same thing an abomination and the work of Satan, as in Sūrah al-Māʾida? Such an act would be one of the impossibilities attributed to the divine, which is impossible for God.

Then, God Almighty concludes the present verse with the coda, There are indeed signs in that for a people who apply reason, to encourage people to think and reflect on the matter of plants and fruits.

وَأَوْحَى رَبُّكَ إِلَى النَّحْلِ أَنِ اتَّخِذِي مِنَ الْجِبَالِ بُيُوتًا وَمِنَ الشَّجَرِ وَمِمَّا يَعْرِشُونَ ٦٨ ثُمَّ كُلِي مِن كُلِّ الثَّمَرَاتِ فَاسْلُكِي سُبُلَ رَبِّكِ ذُلُلاً يَخْرُجُ مِن بُطُونِهَا شَرَابٌ مُّخْتَلِفٌ أَلْوَانُهُ فِيهِ شِفَاء لِلنَّاسِ إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لآيَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ ٦٩

(16:68-69) And your Lord inspired (awḥā) the bee: “Make your home in the mountains, and on the trees and what they erect. Then eat from every fruit and follow meekly (dhulul) the ways of your Lord.” There issues from its belly a juice of diverse hues in which there is a cure for the people. There is indeed a sign in that for a people who reflect.

According to al-Rāghib, waḥī means to quickly indicate, usually in the form of speech, symbolically or through sound, uncomposed or through gestures, among other means. From its uses, it is evident that it refers to the subtle conveyance of a meaning that is hidden from others. Thus, inspiration (ilhām), meaning the conveyance of meaning into the understanding of animals through instinct, is also a form of revelation, just like the entrance of ideas into a person’s psyche through dreams, whisperings, or indications, all of which are forms of revelation. In the Qur’an, this term is used in all these meanings. In one place, it is used for the conveyance of meaning through instinct, as in: And your Lord inspired the bee, through dreams, as in We revealed to Moses’ mother … (), through whispering, as in Indeed the devils inspire their friends … (), and through indication, as in: and signaled to them that they should glorify Allah in the morning and evening (). Another form of revelation involves speaking to prophets and messengers, as mentioned And it is not for a human that Allah should speak to him except by revelation (). However, religious sensibilities in Islam dictate that the term “revelation” should only properly be attributed to the speech conveyed to prophets and messengers.

In Majmaʿ al-Bayān, al-Ṭabrisī writes: “The word dhulul is the plural of dhulūl, meaning “tame.” When one says an animal is dhulūl it means one whose tameness is apparent, while in reference to a man, it means one whose humility and submission are apparent.”

Thus, the meaning of the verse, And your Lord inspired the bee, is that God inspired the honeybee through an instinct that He placed in its nature. The story of the honeybee and the remarkable system it follows in its social life and natural behavior is astonishing. Perhaps it is this extraordinary system that prompted the shift from addressing the polytheists to specifically addressing the Prophet Muḥammad by saying, And your Lord inspired …

Regarding the sentence, Make your home in the mountains, and on the trees and what they erect …, this is the knowledge that God inspired the bee with. Apparently, … and what they erect …, refers to the places where beehives are placed.

The verse, Then eat from every fruit, is a command to the bee to eat from all fruits, even though the honeybee does not eat the fruits but usually settles on flowers, is because the bee’s food is derived from the same basic materials as fruits, which are present in blossoms, but not yet grown and ripe.

God Almighty constructs the phrase, and follow meekly (dhulul) the ways of your Lord, as a consequence of the command to eat, reinforcing the sense that ‘eating’ here means collecting and bringing home to store the honey, made from the fruits. The addition of the word “Lord” in the ways of your Lord, indicates that all the actions and movements of the honeybee are carried out by divine inspiration.

The independent clause, There issues from its belly a juice of diverse hues in which there is a cure for the people. There is indeed a sign in that for a people who reflect, following the command, describes the outcome of the bee’s efforts and compliance with God’s command and its submission to it. The result is the emergence of a drink, honey, from its stomach, with various colors—some white, some yellow, some dark red, and some almost black—in which there is a cure for the people, indicating that it is a cure for many diseases.

A detailed discussion of the honeybee, this intelligent insect whose life is based on a remarkable and superior social structure, and the intricacies and realities of which cannot be fully enumerated, followed by a discussion on honey, which it produces through persistent efforts, and the properties of honey, are topics beyond the scope of this book. Readers are advised to refer to books specifically written on these topics for more information.

God Almighty concludes the present verse with the phrase, There is indeed a sign in that for a people who reflect. This expression is repeated in different forms throughout this section of verses. The verse related to reviving the earth after its death ends with for a people who listen, the verse about the fruits of palm trees and grapes ends with for a people who apply reason, and the verse in question about the bee concludes with for a people who reflect. Perhaps the reason for this is that pondering the matter of life and death naturally brings lessons and admonitions to humans, hence the expression of listening is more suitable for this context. Human attention to the fruits of trees, due to their usefulness and benefits, is a rational and argumentative view, indicative of the connection and coherence of various systems to each other, and this perspective aligns more with the application of reason. And where it comes to the honeybee and its life full of wonders and intricacies, these secrets and details are only revealed to humans through deep thought, thus the life of the honeybee is a sign for those who contemplate.

We have already mentioned that this chapter employs various shifts of address, mainly in these verses, where in one section, the address is directed to the polytheists with mercy and compassion for their state of ignorance, and in another section, due to their disbelief and obstinacy, it turns away from addressing them and directs the speech to the Prophet Muḥammad. This shift in address is evident in the verses of this chapter, constantly alternating between addressing the polytheists and the Prophet.

وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَكُمْ ثُمَّ يَتَوَفَّاكُمْ وَمِنكُم مَّن يُرَدُّ إِلَى أَرْذَلِ الْعُمُرِ لِكَيْ لاَ يَعْلَمَ بَعْدَ عِلْمٍ شَيْئًا إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ قَدِيرٌ ٧٠

(16:70) Allah has created you, then He takes you away, and there are some among you who are relegated to the nethermost age (ardhal al-ʿumur) so that he knows nothing after some knowledge. Indeed Allah is all-knowing, all-powerful.

The word ardhal is the superlative form of ridhāla, meaning lowliness and baseness. The context of the verse, so that he knows nothing after some knowledge, suggests that the phrase ardhal al-ʿumur (“nethermost age”) refers to the age of senility and old age, in which a person’s cognitive and perceptual faculties decline. This decline varies with different temperaments and generally starts around the age of seventy-five.

The verse means that: “God created you, people, then He takes your lives at an average age. However, some of you live to old age, regressing so much due to the weakening of cognitive abilities that after a lifetime of knowledge, they know nothing. This itself is evidence that your life, death, consciousness, and knowledge are not in your hands. Otherwise, you would have retained your intellect for yourself and preserved your life. Rather, this life and knowledge, with their intricate system, are linked to the knowledge and power of God.” This is why the matter is concluded with the phrase, Indeed Allah is all-knowing, all-powerful.

وَاللَّهُ فَضَّلَ بَعْضَكُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ فِي الرِّزْقِ فَمَا الَّذِينَ فُضِّلُواْ بِرَادِّي رِزْقِهِمْ عَلَى مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَهُمْ فِيهِ سَوَاء أَفَبِنِعْمَةِ اللَّهِ يَجْحَدُونَ٧١

(16:71) Allah has granted some of you an advantage over others in provision (rizq). Those who have been granted an advantage do not give over their provision to their slaves so that they become equal in its respect. What, will they dispute the blessing of Allah?

God has favored some people over others in terms of sustenance and wealth. Rizq (sustenance) is what sustains life. This differentiation sometimes relates to quantity, like in poverty and wealth, where a wealthy person is favored multiple times over a poor one. Other times, it is about quality, such as having the independence to manage one’s wealth versus not having it, like a free man who has full control over his property, whereas his slave does not have this autonomy and can only act with the master’s permission. Similarly, minor children are dependent on their guardians, and livestock and domestic animals depend on their owners.

However, the phrase, Those who have been granted an advantage do not give over their provision to their slaves so that they become equal in its respect, implies that the type of favoritism being referred to here is qualitative rather than quantitative. It means that some have been granted freedom and independence with what they possess, to the extent that they neither transfer this freedom and independence to their subordinates, nor can they do so. That is, they cannot make their slaves equal in owning that freedom and independence, thereby dissolving the mastership and ownership.

Hence, this favor is among those that cannot be ignored or transferred to others once possessed. And this favor comes only from God Almighty. The concept of mastership and slavery, although a social construct based on human opinions and societal customs, has its roots in human nature, which has led people to accept it, just like other social matters.

This is evident in the practices of civilized nations that, despite having officially abolished the tradition of slavery long ago and having it ratified by both Western and Eastern nations, still respect the concept of slavery. They may have abolished its form but continue to apply its essence in various ways. In other words, they have shifted from individual slavery to subjugating entire societies, a practice that will continue indefinitely since humans cannot close the door on the competition for superiority. This topic has been further discussed in a later volume of this commentary.

Regarding our statement that qualitative superiority is one of God’s blessings, the reason is that the dominance of one group of people over another itself is beneficial for human society. This is because the dominant group, due to its strength, manages the affairs of the subordinate group, thus completing their lives.

Thus, the phrase, so that they become equal in its respect, begins with the causative fa (“so”), indicating that this phrase is a derivative of the object of the negation in Those who have been granted an advantage …, not the negation itself. The meaning is: “The superior class does not give their sustenance to their slaves to be equal and partners, because doing so would dissolve their mastery and lordship.” If it were derived from the negation, the meaning would have been incorrect, as it would imply that the superior class does not give their sustenance to the lower class, and therefore they are equal, which is not the case if they do not give.

It is also possible that the phrase is a rhetorical question with the interrogative particle omitted and the question being one of denial. It aims to negate the equality of the superior and the inferior, asking: Even though we see the superior not giving their priority to the subordinate, are they still equal? No, because if they were equal, the superior class would be willing to give their sustenance to the subordinate class. Hence, it is clear that this blessing is specifically granted by God to the superior class.

Therefore, the following phrase, will they dispute the blessing of Allah? is a rhetorical, reproachful question, seemingly derived from the previous phrase and implying denial. The “blessing” mentioned here refers to the aforementioned superiority.

Therefore, the meaning of the verse is: “God has differentiated among you in such a way that some of you are favored over others in terms of sustenance. Some are made free and independent in managing their wealth, while others are made slaves, dependent on their masters for permission to act. Those who are superior do not give their sustenance, which comes with freedom and independence, to their subordinates and slaves to become equal in sustenance. Therefore, these two classes are not equal. The sustenance accompanied by freedom and independence is a blessing that God has specifically bestowed upon the superior class. Do they still deny God’s blessing?”

This is the apparent meaning of the verse, supported by the context and accompanying cues. The context of the verses is about counting blessings and acknowledging them.

Other explanations that have been offered for the aforementioned verse include:

Some have said it means: “People are not willing to share their wealth and spouses with their slaves to be equal with them, as they perceive this equality as a form of deficiency for themselves. So, how can I, God, make My creations partners in My dominion and divinity so that people may worship them just as they worship Me, and seek closeness to them just as they seek closeness to Me? Thus, those who worship Jesus, son of Mary, do they consider their God to be less than an ordinary master?”

Others have said that this verse conveys the same message as the verse: He sets forth for you a parable from your own selves: Do you have among those whom your right hands possess any partners in the wealth We have provided for you so that you are equal therein? (). They further say that the verse in question was revealed regarding the Christians of Najran.

However, as we mentioned, the context of the verse is about enumerating blessings to present the case for monotheism, not contradiction or reproach, as there is no trace of reproach or contradiction in it.

Furthermore, the verse is one of those revealed in Mecca, and the Prophet had no encounter with the Christians of Najran in Mecca. The Christians of Najran came to him in Medina, either in the sixth year AH or later. Comparing this verse with the verse from Sūrah al-Rūm is also incorrect, as the two have different contexts: This verse uses the context of argumentation through counting blessings, while the latter verse uses reproach for polytheism.

Another reading of the verse is that those whom God has favored with sustenance and freedom should not think they are the providers for their slaves. God provides sustenance for their slaves just as He provides for the masters. If the masters give something to their slaves, it is from the sustenance that God has provided them. Therefore, both groups are equal in the eyes of God.

The essence of this explanation is that the phrase, so that they become equal in its respect, stands in for an implicit objection, with the implication being: “The masters do not give their sustenance to their slaves; rather, it is God who provides for the slaves through the masters, and both groups are equal in terms of sustenance before God.”

However, the problem with this interpretation is that the equality mentioned at the end of the verse would negate the initial statement of superiority in the verse, essentially implying that there is no superiority. This contradicts the phrase, will they dispute the blessing of Allah?

Some others have suggested that the verse means: The masters never relinquish control of their sustenance to their slaves to act like them and become equal to them.

This interpretation also has a problem because it essentially means that a person prevents others from having control over their property. This notion is not exclusive to subordinates and slaves, and therefore, mentioning slaves specifically is redundant. If one argues that it refers to not giving to subordinates because of having control over them, it returns to the meaning we have proposed: the blessing highlighted in this verse is the masters’ control over their slaves and their superiority in terms of owning sustenance compared to the slaves.

وَاللَّهُ جَعَلَ لَكُم مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا وَجَعَلَ لَكُم مِّنْ أَزْوَاجِكُم بَنِينَ وَحَفَدَةً وَرَزَقَكُم مِّنَ الطَّيِّبَاتِ أَفَبِالْبَاطِلِ يُؤْمِنُونَ وَبِنِعْمَتِ اللَّهِ هُمْ يَكْفُرُونَ ٧٢

(16:72) Allah made for you mates from your own selves and appointed for you, from your mates, children and grandchildren (ḥafada), and We provided you with all the good things (min al-ṭayyibāt). What, will they believe in falsehood while they deny the blessing of Allah?

Al-Rāghib in al-Mufradāt writes that God states: and appointed for you, from your mates, children and grandchildren. The word ḥafada is the plural of ḥāfid, which literally means “one who is busy and rushing to serve others” whether relatives or strangers. Commentators have interpreted ḥafada as grandchildren, as the idea of serving relatives applies most readily to them. Al-Asmaʿī has said that the root meaning of ḥafad is “to place one foot in the place of another without stopping.” In Majmaʿ al-Bayān, al-Ṭabrisī writes that ḥafad originally means speed in action. It is also used for aides as they are quick in obeying commands.

In the verse, ḥafada refers to helpers and servants among children, as it specifies that they have come from spouses. Therefore, some have interpreted “children” and ḥafada as referring to young and adult children, while others have interpreted “children” as immediate children and ḥafada as grandchildren.

Therefore, the verse means: “God has provided you with children and helpers from your spouses, to assist you in your needs. You can avert difficulties and unpleasant situations through their efforts. Also, God has given you delightful provisions including water, various fruits whose production you did not contribute to, and other items such as food and clothing, which are the result of your own efforts.” The preposition in min in the phrase min al-ṭayyibāt (“the good things”) implies a distinction, the reason for which is clear.

Then, the verse admonishes the polytheists, stating, What, will they believe in falsehood … referring to idols, the attribution of daughters to God and sons to themselves, and laws legislated by their misguided leaders, while they deny the blessing of Allah? The favor mentioned here includes the spouses of their own kind, and children and grandchildren that arise from these spouses. This is among the greatest and most apparent favors, as it forms the foundation of human society. Without it, no society would be formed, nor would collaboration and cooperative efforts among individuals exist, ultimately preventing humanity from achieving worldly and spiritual prosperity.

Indeed, if humanity were to sever this natural bond bestowed by God and break this connecting thread, no alternative method could replace this natural connection. The disintegration of human unity and the scattering of its solidarity would inevitably lead to its destruction.

This verse, following the previous one, addresses the fact that the polytheists deny God’s blessings and worship entities other than God that do not possess any control over providing sustenance from the heavens and the earth...

وَيَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ مَا لاَ يَمْلِكُ لَهُمْ رِزْقًا مِّنَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ شَيْئًا وَلاَ يَسْتَطِيعُونَ ٧٣

(16:73) They worship besides Allah what has no power to provide them with anything from the heavens and the earth (mā lam yamliku rizqan min al-samawāt wa al-arḍ shayʾan), nor are they capable.

Interpreters have said: “The word rizq (“provision”) is a verbal noun, and shayʾ (“anything”) is its object. The meaning is thus: “They worship those who cannot provide them with anything as sustenance.”

Others have interpreted rizq as referring to the one being provided for, and shayʾ a permutation of it. Yet another group has said that shayʾ is an absolute object, implying that they worship that which does not possess the power to provide them with provision and which, in fact, does not possess anything in the heavens or the earth. Of these explanations, the middle one seems the most accurate and appropriate.

It is also possible to say that the phrase, from the heavens and the earth, is an extension of rizq, representing a part of the whole. The meaning would then be: “They worship things that are not only unable to provide sustenance but also own nothing in the entirety of the heavens and the earth.” And the phrase, nor are they capable, implies that they are incapable of owning provision or anything at all. This could also be read as signifying that they are utterly incapable of anything whatsoever.

This verse combines two considerations regarding idols, typically made from stone, wood, gold, or silver: First, they are considered non-sentient, hence the use of the non-sentient pronoun mā (“what”) in ma lā yamliku. However, since they were regarded and worshiped as deities, they are also treated as sentient beings, using the masculine plural, which is normally for sentient beings in nor are they capable (wa lā yastaṭīʿūn).

This verse offers another way to emphasize the main purpose of enumerating blessings, returning to elaborate on the primary outcome, which is the affirmation of monotheism, prophethood, and the afterlife. Across four verses, it delineates the primary conclusion of affirming monotheism, denying the likenesses they set up for God, illustrating the uniqueness of God in lordship, presenting a parable for prophethood and legislation, and addressing the matter of resurrection.

فَلاَ تَضْرِبُواْ لِلَّهِ الأَمْثَالَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ ٧٤

(16:74) So do not draw comparisons for Allah: indeed Allah knows and you do not know

From the apparent meaning of the verse, it seems that drawing comparisons for God refers to describing Him with a kind of metaphor known in literary terms as a “similitude.” For instance, saying things about God like: He has daughters as humans do, angels are His daughters, there is a kinship between God and the jinn, and questioning how God can revive bones after they have decayed. The usual meaning of drawing comparisons, as used in the Qur’an, is what we have described. This was also mentioned earlier in the verses where it was stated: For those who do not believe in the Hereafter is the description of evil, and for God is the highest description.

Therefore, the verse means that since matters are as stated, do not describe God in such a way; that is, do not liken Him to others or compare Him with His creation, because God knows, and you do not understand the realities and the essence of God.

Some commentators have said that the term “drawing comparisons” actually means making equivalents or likening, and “comparisons” here means equivalents. Thus, the phrase “Do not draw comparisons for God” conveys the same meaning as the verse: Do not set up rivals to God. However, this interpretation seems distant from the actual meaning of the verse.

ضَرَبَ اللَّهُ مَثَلاً عَبْدًا مَّمْلُوكًا لاَّ يَقْدِرُ عَلَى شَيْءٍ وَمَن رَّزَقْنَاهُ مِنَّا رِزْقًا حَسَنًا فَهُوَ يُنفِقُ مِنْهُ سِرًّا وَجَهْرًا هَلْ يَسْتَوُونَ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ ٧٥

(16:75) Allah draws a parable: a slave who has no power over anything, and one whom We have provided a goodly provision and who spends out of it secretly and openly. Are they equal (yastawūn)? All praise belongs to Allah. But most of them do not know.

The parable presented in this verse is of a slave who is completely owned and powerless, juxtaposed with another person who has been given bountiful provision by God, from which he spends both openly and secretly. The question then posed is whether these two can be considered equal. The contrast between these two hypothetical individuals, each characterized by attributes contrary to the other, highlights their distinct natures.

The enslaved individual, entirely owned and without any possessions or the ability to manage any wealth of his own, is contrasted with someone who is not only free but also endowed with wealth from God, which he manages and from which he gives generously. The rhetorical question “Are they equal?” obviously anticipates a negative response, thereby affirming that God, as the ultimate Provider and Owner of everything, is unequaled by any of His creations. This is because all other entities do not own anything themselves, neither for themselves nor for others, and are incapable of managing any affairs. Thus, the polytheists’ claim of other gods existing alongside God is erroneous, as these supposed deities are merely God’s creations.

The use of the plural form yastawūn instead of the dual yastawiyān (“they two are equal”) indicates that the discussion is about the general nature of a slave and a free person, not about specific individuals, contrary to what some commentators have assumed.

The statement, All praise belongs to Allah, means that all praise (ḥamd), which is the recognition of a voluntary act of goodness, belongs to God Almighty, because all beautiful blessings come from Him. Since praise is specifically for that which is beautiful, all forms of praise are uniquely His, just as the essence of praise itself is His alone.

This sentence concludes the argument, emphasizing that a powerless slave who cannot give anything to anyone is not equal to a master who owns provisions and can dispense them as he wishes. God Almighty is the one who deserves praise in every aspect, as no blessing exists that is not His creation. Thus, every attribute worthy of praise, be it creation, provision, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, beneficence, or others, is possessed by God. Therefore, all expressions of beautiful praise belong to Him. The entities worshiped by polytheists, whatever they may be, are merely owned and powerless. Hence, God Almighty is the one and only Lord.

Some have said that “praise” in this present verse refers to gratitude for the blessings of God Almighty. Others have interpreted the statement, All praise belongs to Allah, as referring to the completeness and strength of the argument presented. Yet another group of commentators suggests that it aims to instill in the servants the notion to proclaim: “All praise is due to God, who has guided us to His monotheism and directed us toward gratitude for His blessings.” However, none of these explanations merit credence.

The meaning of the phrase, But most of them do not know, is that most polytheists are unaware that all blessings come from God, and that no one else owns anything or has any power. Instead, they attribute a share of ownership and power, albeit delegated, to their deities and worship these entities in hopes of their favors or in fear of their harm. This is the common condition of the polytheists. However, a minority among them, the elite, are aware of the truth but turn away from it due to arrogance and obstinacy. Thus, it becomes clear that the verse presents a parable about God and the polytheists’ associates, who they believe share in God’s lordship.

Some have also said that this parable exemplifies the state of the humiliated disbelievers and the successful believers. Disbelievers, whose good deeds are nullified and disregarded, resemble slaves who have no power over anything. Even if they give much, they are not acknowledged as benevolent. In contrast, a believer is guided by God toward His satisfaction, and God appreciates even the smallest good deed that they do, whether done in secret or openly. However, this explanation is not valid as it does not align with the context of argumentation that characterizes the discussed verses.

As previously mentioned, this verse is one of three consecutive verses addressing the same purpose: enumerating God’s blessings to affirm monotheism. It contrasts the situation of the one who bestows all blessings with that of someone who owns nothing and is incapable of anything, concluding that the true Lord is the sole benefactor, and no other.

وَضَرَبَ اللَّهُ مَثَلاً رَّجُلَيْنِ أَحَدُهُمَا أَبْكَمُ لاَ يَقْدِرُ عَلَىَ شَيْءٍ وَهُوَ كَلٌّ عَلَى مَوْلاهُ أَيْنَمَا يُوَجِّههُّ لاَ يَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ هَلْ يَسْتَوِي هُوَ وَمَن يَأْمُرُ بِالْعَدْلِ وَهُوَ عَلَى صِرَاطٍ مُّسْتَقِيمٍ ٧٦

(16:76) Allah draws a parable: Two men, one of whom is dumb (abkam), having no power over anything and who is a liability (kall) to his master: wherever he directs him (tawjīh) he does not bring any good. Is he equal to someone who enjoins justice and is on a straight path?

In Majmaʿ al-Bayān, al-Ṭabrisī says abkam refers to someone who is born mute, unable to understand or be understood. It is also said that it refers to one who is unable to speak, kall means to be burdensome or difficult. If a matter is too heavy or burdensome, it is said, ‘it became kall on him, hence he did not undertake it.’

The verb kallat al-sikkīn means “the knife has become dull or blunt.” A tongue is described as kall when it does not articulate speech due to its thickness and loss of sharpness. Thus, the root of the term is heaviness, which prevents penetration or effectiveness. Tawjīh means to send someone in a certain direction, as in: “I directed him to such a place, and he headed toward it.”

So, the statement Allah draws a parable: Two men … draws a comparison between two hypothetical men who are opposites in terms of their described traits.

And His statement, one of whom is dumb, having no power over anything means deprived of understanding speech and communicating with others through speech due to being mute, unable to hear and speak. Thus, he lacks all the capacities and advantages that a person acquires through hearing, which is the widest of the senses in scope. Through hearing, a person gains knowledge of past events and occurrences beyond the sight, understands what is in people’s hearts, and learns various sciences and arts. Through it, a person can convey significant and intricate meanings to others. The mute person is unable to grasp any of this except for the very little that sight can aid, supplemented by gestures.

The phrase, having no power over anything, is specified for the mute person because, as we mentioned, a mute person is capable of limited understanding. Therefore, the meaning of this phrase becomes: one of the two individuals is mute and incapable of any perception that a non-mute person has.

The phrase, and who is a liability to his master, means that he is dependent on someone else for his affairs. He cannot manage his own matters. The subsequent phrase, wherever he directs him, he does not bring any good implies that the master, no matter where he sends the mute person or for whatever purpose, the mute person is unable to accomplish the task. He cannot fulfill the needs of his master or his own.

This example describes one of the two hypothetical individuals. The example of the second individual is not mentioned because the listener can infer his characteristics from the first. The verse succinctly sums up the second person’s traits by referring to justice, stating: Is he equal to someone who enjoins justice …?

Thus, the phrase, Is he equal to someone who enjoins justice and is on a straight path? points to the characteristics of the second hypothetical person, questioning whether these two individuals, if compared, are equal.

Regarding the description, the man is portrayed with the utmost good and perfection that one can possess other than being mute. This good and perfection is justice, which is committing to the middle path in actions and avoiding excess or deficiency. Indeed, enjoining justice, when genuinely practiced, necessitates that righteousness prevails in a person’s character, then extends to their actions, maintaining moderation in affairs. Then, one desires this moderation to extend to others’ actions, enjoining them to justice. As you know, justice, in general, means avoiding excess and deficiency, i.e., righteous deeds encompass more than just fairness in governance.

Then he is described as being “on a straight path,” which is the clear way that guides its travelers to their destination without deviation. A person who, in their life’s journey, is on a straight path conducts their actions according to human nature without contradicting some actions with others or deviating from what they perceive as true. In summary, there is no inconsistency or contradiction in their actions.

Describing this hypothetical man, who enjoins justice and is on a straight path, firstly implies that his enjoining of justice is not a matter of preaching righteousness to others while neglecting himself. Rather, he is upright in his conditions and actions, practicing justice as he preaches it.

Secondly, his enjoining of justice is not a novelty without a foundation to build upon. Instead, he himself is on the straight path, and it is natural for him to want the same for others, thus he enjoins them to adhere to the middle way and avoid the extremes of excess and deficiency.

As for the question, namely, Is he equal to someone who enjoins justice …?, it is a rhetorical question with the only answer being a denial, undoubtedly. This confirms that what they worship besides God, like idols and statues, devoid of power and unable to guide themselves or others, does not equate to God, who is on a straight path in His essence, guiding others by sending messengers and legislating laws.

From this, it appears that the parable mentioned in the verse is related to God’s statement, Then is He who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who finds not guidance unless he is guided? Then what is the matter with you? How do you judge? (). God, the Exalted, is on a straight path in His attributes and actions. Part of the straightness of His path is that He assigns purposes to His creations, so creation is not in vain, as He says, And We did not create the heaven and the earth and that between them aimlessly (). He guides each creation toward its specific purpose as He created it and assigned it a purpose, as He says, Who gave everything its creation and then guided it (), guiding humanity toward a deliberate path, as mentioned, With Allah rests guidance to the straight path () and Indeed, We guided him to the way (Qur’an ).

This principle forms the basis of the argument for prophethood and legislation, which has been thoroughly discussed in the sections on prophethood in the second part of the book and in the stories of Noah in the tenth part.

The purpose of the parable in this verse is to establish an argument for monotheism, with an indication toward prophethood and legislation.

It has been said that the parable is about those from whom good is expected and those from whom it is not. The origin of all good is from God Almighty, so how can He be equated with anything else in worship?

The context, however, is more specific than that. It is a parable about one who is inherently good, who commands justice—a characteristic unique to Almighty God, unlike others. Yet, they do not equate Him with others in worship; instead, they leave Him and worship others.

It has also been said that the parable compares a believer and a non-believer, where the mute person represents the non-believer, and the one who commands justice represents the believer. However, while the verse can indeed apply to a believer and a non-believer, or to anyone who commands justice and anyone who remains silent about it, its indication within the context of enumerating blessings and arguing for monotheism and related principles is something else. From this perspective, the subject of the parable is God Almighty and what is worshiped besides Him, not others.

However, the proponent of this explanation has confused the lexical meaning of the verse with its contextual meaning. Indeed, while the lexical content of the verse may fit the notion of a believer and disbeliever, or one who commands justice and another who remains silent, its contextual meaning within the verses enumerating God’s blessings, arguing for monotheism, and affirming other religious principles, is quite different.

We do not say that the verse does not fit with their explanation, but rather that the context must also be considered. In view of this aspect, the noble verse only pertains to one scenario, and aligns with only one situation, namely God Almighty and the idols that were worshiped, and nothing else.

وَلِلَّهِ غَيْبُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ وَمَا أَمْرُ السَّاعَةِ إِلاَّ كَلَمْحِ الْبَصَرِ أَوْ هُوَ أَقْرَبُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ ٧٧

(16:77) To Allah belongs the Unseen of the heavens and the earth. The matter of the Hour is just like the twinkling of an eye, or even swifter. Indeed Allah has power over all things.

In the expressions of the Qur’an, the Unseen is often contrasted with the witnessed, repeatedly stating, Knower of the Unseen and the witnessed. We have mentioned several times that the Unseen and the witnessed are relative terms, meaning that a matter may be unseen or hidden in relation to one thing, and witnessed or observable in relation to another.

Given that some things have aspects that are partially visible to others and partially hidden, meaning they encompass both the unseen and the witnessed, the addition of ‘the unseen’ and ‘the witnessed’ to something sometimes implies ‘from’ in the sense of ownership. For instance, ‘the unseen of the heavens and the earth’ could mean what is hidden and external to their limits. This notion also includes a type of specificity, as in the verse, And He does not disclose His unseen to anyone ().

Alternatively, it can mean “of” or something similar, suggesting that “the unseen of the heavens and the earth” refers to what is contained within them, as opposed to what is visible. In other words, it is what remains hidden from understanding concerning their nature, as opposed to what is manifest.

The Hour (Day of Judgment) belongs to the unseen of the heavens and the earth in this second sense:

Firstly, because God counts it among the Unseen in His discourse, and it is not external to the matter of the heavens and the earth, so it belongs to the unseen in this sense.

Secondly, because the descriptions given of the Hour, such as the day when God informs them of their differing beliefs, the day when secrets are laid bare, and the day when humans speak, for example, You were certainly in oblivion of this, and We have removed from you your cover, so your sight, this day, is acute (), or when they address their Lord, saying, Our Lord, we have seen and heard, so return us; we will do righteous deeds (), all indicate the Hour as a day when hidden truths of this world are made manifestly clear. These truths are not external to the heavens and the earth; they exist alongside them.

Moreover, God states, And to Allah belongs the unseen of the heavens and the earth (), affirming His ownership of this unseen realm. His ownership is not merely conceptual but relates to something concrete, despite our ignorance of its true nature.

Numerous Qur’anic verses support this reading. For instance, God describes life in this world as a deceptive enjoyment and a game, repeatedly stating that most people do not understand the reality of the Day of Judgment. He mentions that the hereafter is the true life, and on that Day, people will realize that God is the manifest truth, and they will see from God what they did not expect. These and other verses in their various languages allude to this concept.

In summary, the Hour is part of the unseen of the heavens and the earth. The verse, To Allah belongs the Unseen of the heavens and the earth (), affirms His total ownership of this Unseen, not merely His knowledge of it. He does not say, “And to God belongs the knowledge of the unseen of the heavens and the earth.” The context of the verse suggests that it serves as a prelude to the statement, The matter of the Hour is just like the twinkling of an eye (), making it an argumentative statement.

Based on this, the verse implies that God Almighty is the sovereign of the unseen aspects of the heavens and the earth. He possesses a dominion that enables Him to control these unseen aspects in any way He wishes, just as He can control their visible and apparent aspects. And why not? Since the unseen of anything is not separate from its visible aspect, and the unseen is a firm existence alongside the visible. Both the creation and command, which represent the visible and the unseen, belong to God. The Hour, or the promised Day of Judgment, is not an impossible matter beyond His power; rather, it is part of the unseen aspects of the heavens and the earth, a reality of the heavens and earth currently hidden from human understanding. Thus, the Day of Judgment is also under God’s dominion, and He can manipulate it, keeping it hidden for a day and revealing it on another.

The statement, The matter of the Hour is just like the twinkling of an eye, or even swifter, Indeed Allah has power over all things—is not difficult for Him because His command is as swift as blinking an eye or even swifter, given His power over all things.

Based on this, it becomes evident that the verse, The matter of the Hour is just like the twinkling of an eye, or even swifter, Indeed Allah has power over all things (), is not directed toward establishing the fundamental existence or possibility of the Hour. Rather, it negates the notion of difficulty or hardship in its occurrence, emphasizing the ease with which God can bring it about.

The phrase, The matter of the Hour is just like the twinkling of an eye, or even swifter implies that, in relation to God, the Hour is not burdensome. Although God has portrayed the Hour as momentous, even daunting, in other verses, such as, It is heavy upon the heavens and the earth (), comparing its occurrence to the blink of an eye is from the perspective of the listener. The blink of an eye, being one of the lightest and quickest human actions, serves as an analogy for ease of understanding. Thus, when followed by, or even swifter, it suggests a contrast, as if God is saying, “The ease and simplicity of the Hour, in relation to Us, is comparable to one of you blinking. However, in reality, it is even more immediate than that,” as indicated in another verse, And the day He says, ‘Be,’ and it is (). To God, the command of the Hour is as effortless as the simplest of creations.

The subsequent part, Indeed Allah has power over all things, underlines that His omnipotence makes all things equal in relation to Him.

Beware of assuming that the generality of omnipotence does not negate differences among things in terms of relative difficulty. The number of intermediaries between the doer and the deed, as well as conditions and obstacles, certainly affects this. For example, a human is capable of both breathing and carrying manageable weights, but these are not equally easy tasks.

This misunderstanding overlooks the nature of absolute omnipotence. Human power is limited; for instance, a person’s ability to eat is conditioned by the availability of food, its accessibility, the absence of hindrances, and the functionality of body parts like hands and mouth. A human controls only the will to act, and everything beyond that—intermediaries, conditions, obstacles—is beyond their true control, limiting their power. When a human acts, these conditions must be met.

In contrast, God’s power is inherent in His essential being, which necessarily exists and cannot cease. If His power were conditional upon external factors, it would cease to exist without them, which is impossible. Therefore, His power is absolute, unrestricted, encompassing everything equally, without any object being more difficult or easier, nearer or farther to Him. The differences lie within the objects themselves, not in relation to His power.

Another perspective is that everything in existence relies on God for its being. If we consider all existing things collectively, attributing them to God, they all fall under His power. There is no third factor that could be considered a limiting condition to His power, as that would imply a partnership in influence, which is far above God.

Regarding the interrelation of causes, conditions, and obstacles among things themselves, they necessitate the restriction of some things by others, but do not restrict the general Divine power that encompasses all. This power interacts with the restricted aspects, not the absolute. For instance, the object of power is Zayd, who is defined by his parents, time, place, etc. The existence of Zayd, with all his connections, is equivalent to the existence of the entire world, and the power that affects him affects everything precisely and individually. This power is absolute, unrestricted, without differentiation among things in relation to it. The differences lie within the things themselves.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the universality of God’s power eliminates differences among things in terms of ease and difficulty. The noble verse demonstrates:

(1) The true nature of resurrection is the revelation of the reality of things after their concealment.

(2) Divine power encompasses all things equally, without distinction in ease, difficulty, proximity, or distance.

(3) Things, in reality, are interconnected in existence, such that the creation of one implies the creation of all, all being subject to a single power with no other influence.

There is a simpler perspective, considering the system of causes and effects. God has verified this in His speech, as explained in the discussion of miracles in the first part of the book. From this viewpoint, things are separate, with the existence of some depending on the existence or absence of others, leading to sequence, ease, difficulty, and causes acting as intermediates between them and God. This is a simple view.

Many commentators have mentioned regarding, And to Allah belongs the unseen of the heavens and the earth, that it implies omission, meaning the knowledge of the unseen. However, this interpretation breaks the connection between this sentence and what follows, as there is no link between the knowledge of the unseen and the ease of the Hour. The sentence then becomes a digression, unnecessary in the discourse.

Some commentators have noted that the meaning here refers to the knowledge of the unseen aspects of the heavens and the earth, not through an implicit understanding of ‘knowledge’ in the discourse. This implies that the ‘unseen’ related to the heavens and the earth encompasses unknown matters within them, both present and future. God’s dominion over these unseen matters is equated to His knowledge of them.

However, this last premise is disputable, as previously explained. The issue of the connection between the two sentences remains unresolved.

Furthermore, some have attempted to explain the rationale derived Indeed Allah has power over all things by suggesting that among the things God is capable of is the establishment of the Hour in the briefest possible time.

This explanation, however, does not adequately address the implications of the negation and affirmation inherent in the exclusivity of the statement. It would only be sufficient if it were said that God will make the occurrence of the Hour as swift as the blinking of an eye, while it might not necessarily be so. This should be understood in its proper context.

Examining Narrations

1. In Tafsīr al-Qummī, concerning the phrase, We give you to drink of that which is in their bellies from between waste and blood (), a narration from Imam ʿAlī states that “excretion” refers to what is in the stomach of the cattle.
2. In al-Kāfī, ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm narrates from his father, from Nawfulī, from Sukūnī, who reported that Imam al-Ṣādiq said: “No one chokes when drinking milk, nor does milk cause choking, as God Almighty has said as pure milk, pleasant to those who drink.”
3. In Tafsīr al-Qummī, with its chain of narrators from ʿAlī b. Mughīra, it is narrated from Imam al-Ṣādiq, in explanation of the verse, And your Lord inspired the bee (): “We are the bees to whom God has revealed—to take the mountains, homes. He ordered us to take Shiʿa from the Arabs—and on the trees—meaning from the non-Arabs—and what they erect—from the clients— There issues from its belly a juice of diverse hues—it is the knowledge that comes out from us to you.”

Author’s comment: There are other narrations in this regard, and they are metaphorical. This is supported by some of these narrations that apply the bees to the Prophet Muḥammad and the mountains to the Quraysh, the trees to the Arabs, what they construct to the clients, and what comes out of their bellies to knowledge.

4. In Tafsīr al-Qummī, with its chain of narrators from ʿAlī b. Mughīra, it is narrated from Imam al-Ṣādiq: “When a servant reaches a hundred years, that is the most decrepit part of life.”
5. In Majmaʿ al-Bayān, al-Ṭabrisī narrates from ʿAlī: “The most decrepit part of life is seventy-five years,” and the same is narrated from the Prophet.

Author’s comment: This narration is cited in al-Durr al-Manthūr from al-Ṭabarī, from ʿAlī, and also from Ibn Mardawayh, from Anas, from the Prophet, a detailed hadith indicating that the most abject age is a hundred years.

6. In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, it’s narrated from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ashl from Imam al-Ṣādiq regarding the statement, and appointed for you, from your mates, children and grandchildren: “Descendants’ refers to the sons of daughters, and we are the descendants of the Prophet of God.”
7. In the same source, from Jamīl b. Darrāj, it is narrated from Imam al-Ṣādiq that, by ḥafada, they mean helpers from the children.
8. In Majmaʿ al-Bayān, al-Ṭabrisī says that the meaning of ḥafada is relatives acquired through marriage by the daughter, adding that this meaning is narrated from Imam al-Ṣādiq.

Author’s comment: As previously explained, there is no contradiction among these narrations.

9. In Tahdhīb, al-Ṭūsī narrates via his chain of narrators from Shuʿayb Aqarqūfī from Imam al-Ṣādiq, regarding the divorce and marriage of a slave: “A slave does not have the authority to divorce or marry. Have you not heard the words of God Almighty: a slave who has no power over anything, meaning incapable of divorce and marriage without the permission of his master.”

Author’s comment: Several other narrations on this topic have reached us through Shiʿa sources.

10. In Tafsīr Al-Qummī, concerning the verse, Is he equal to someone who enjoins justice and is on a straight path? (), it is narrated from the Imam that he said: “How can they be equal when the one who commands justice refers to the Commander of the Faithful and the Imams?”
11. In Tafsīr al-Burhān, it is narrated from Ibn Shahr Āshūb, from Ḥamza b. ʿAtāʾ from Imam al-Bāqir, it is narrated, concerning the verse: Is he equal to someone who enjoins justice and is on a straight path?: “It refers to ʿAlī b. Abī Talib, who is on the straight path.”

Author’s comment: These two narrations are specific instances of a general concept and, as previously stated, are not related to the reasons for revelation.

Similarly, there are narrations from Sunnī sources regarding the verse: Allah draws a parable: a slave who has no power over anything … One tradition interprets it as referring to Hishām b. ʿAmr, who gave charity secretly and openly, and his slave Abū al-Jawza advised against it. Another explanation says it refers to ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān and his slave.

There are also narrations related to the verse, Allah draws a parable: Two men … (), where the mute one is said to be Ubayy b. Khalaf, and the one commanding justice is interpreted as Ḥamza and ʿUthmān b. Maẓʿūn. Additionally, there are narrations suggesting that the mute one refers to Hāshim b. ʿUmar b. Ḥārith of Quraysh, who was stingy and hostile toward the Prophet Muḥammad. Other narrations identify the mute one as Abū Jahl, with the just one who enjoins justice being ʿAmmār b. Yāsir, and still others interpret the one who enjoins justice as ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, while the mute as his disbelieving servant, Usayd b. Ubayy al-ʿAyṣ.