Verses 40–55
These verses continue the topic of monotheism. They rebuke the polytheists for assuming idols, describing the noble angels as females, and not taking heed by the proofs of monotheism provided for them in the Qur’an. Among other things the verses talk about how the polytheists do not understand the Qur’an but instead mock the Prophet and the idea of resurrection, and utter profanities concerning God.
Commentary
أَفَأَصْفَىٰكُمْ رَبُّكُم بِٱلْبَنِينَ وَٱتَّخَذَ مِنَ ٱلْمَلَـٰٓئِكَةِ إِنَـٰثًا ۚ إِنَّكُمْ لَتَقُولُونَ قَوْلًا عَظِيمًا ٤٠
(17:40) What! has then your Lord preferred to give you (aṣfākum, from iṣfāʾ) sons, and (for Himself) taken females (ināthan) from among the angels? Most surely you utter a grievous saying.
Iṣfāʾ means to choose and single something out (ikhlās). Majmaʿ al-bayān says, “When you select someone over others to be given something you would say: I iṣfaytu so-an-so by this thing.”
This verse addresses those who used to hold that all or some of the angels are God’s daughters. The question in the verse is a rhetorical one, implying a negation. Perhaps the reason why the verse says “females” (ināthan) instead of daughters (banāt) is that they [the audience] used to count femininity [in general, not particularly being a daughter] as an abject quality.
The implied meaning is: Given that He is your Lord and not the Lord of others, and given that He is the One Who is in charge of everything, how can you say that He has preferred you by an honor by which He has not honored even Himself? And that is preferring you by sons while He has only assumed female children for Himself; that is, the noble angels that you suppose to be females. Most surely you utter a grievous saying that will solicit evil consequences.
وَلَقَدْ صَرَّفْنَا فِى هَـٰذَا ٱلْقُرْءَانِ لِيَذَّكَّرُوا۟ وَمَا يَزِيدُهُمْ إِلَّا نُفُورًا ٤١
(17:41) And certainly We have repeated (warnings) (ṣarrafnā, from taṣrīf) in this Qur’an that they may be mindful, but it does not add save to their aversion (nufūran, from nafr).
Al-Mufradāt says:
Ṣarf is to turn something from one state to another, or to turn it into something else. Taṣrīf means the same, with an element of abundance and multitude. It is used the most when talking about changing something from one condition to another, or from one affair to another. Taṣrīf of winds means moving them from one state to another. He says: And We repeated [or expressed in different ways] the communications (); and We have distinctly set forth therein of threats [in various forms] (). Other examples are taṣrīf al-kalām [that is, expressing something in different ways and words] and taṣrīf al-darāhim [that is, exchange of money].
It also says:
Nafr means being disposed away from something and toward something else—much like fazaʿ, which is turning away from something in fear and turning toward something else instead. It is used as: nafara ʿan al-shayʾi nufūran. He says: It increased them in naught but aversion (); But it does not add save to their aversion ().
What is meant based on the context is: I swear that in this Qur’an We have indeed repeated Our speech with them about the truth of monotheism and the falsity of polytheism through several arguments, and We have shifted from one tone to another. We have presented Our speech in different expressions and We have made it clear by many elaborations so that they may take heed and the truth may become clear to them.
…but it does not add save to their aversion: It means: These repetitions only added to their aversion. Whenever a new expression came to them it created a new aversion in them.
The verse involves a shift from the second person to the third person, indicating that they are not worthy of being directly addressed and spoken to due to this attitude of theirs.
Majmaʿ al-bayān says:
One may ask: If it is known [to God] that the revelation of Qur’an only increases their aversion, then what is the point of its revelation? What is the wisdom in this?
The answer is: The wisdom is that this completes the proof against them and leaves them no excuse as to the lack of clear arguments that establish their responsibility. Moreover, it benefits and guides a group that would not have been guided in the absence of revelation. Furthermore, if it were not to be revealed, these people who escape from faith would have created an even greater evil than their aversion now. Thus wisdom necessitates the revelation of these teachings. Their aversion to these verses and arguments was because they viewed them as doubts and deceptions, and because they did not ponder over them sufficiently.
His claim that “they would have created an even greater evil than their aversion now” is not correct. This is because the increase of their aversion leads them to denying, opposing and blocking the way of the truth, and there is no greater evil in the propagation of religion than these.
However, it should be noted that even though disbelief, denial, aversion and enmity to the truth harm their doers and lead them to damnation, they benefit those who believe the truth, are satisfied with it, and submit to it. Had there been no opposites for these good traits and beautiful virtues, they would not have been realized [as virtues and values]. Contemplate this!
Therefore, wisdom necessitates that proofs should be provided to the point of perfection and beyond perfection. This will bring out the capacity and aptitude of the wretched for wretchedness to the utmost degree. Likewise, the felicitous would rise to various degrees of elevation according to their actions in contrast to the degrees of the wretched. After all, He says: All do We aid—these as well as those—out of the bounty of your Lord, and the bounty of your Lord is not confined ().
قُل لَّوْ كَانَ مَعَهُۥٓ ءَالِهَةٌ كَمَا يَقُولُونَ إِذًا لَّٱبْتَغَوْا۟ إِلَىٰ ذِى ٱلْعَرْشِ سَبِيلًا ٤٢
(17:42) Say: If there were with Him gods as they say, then certainly they would have been able to seek a way to the Lord of the Throne.
Here God stops talking to them and directs His address to the Prophet. He orders him to talk to them concerning the topic of monotheism and the falsity of polytheism—specifically about their belief that there are gods besides God who direct the affairs in the universe, each at its own level, and that each of them is a lord over its own jurisdiction and area of direction, such as the goddess of the sky, the goddess of the earth, the goddess of war and the goddess of Quraysh.
Being God’s partners in the direction of affairs means that each of them has sovereignty (mulk) according to its dominion of lordship. However, sovereignty over something is a necessary consequence of its creation [by the sovereign], and God is the only Creator, even according to their own belief. Their claim implies that sovereignty and lordship of the universe is intrinsically capable of being divided and taken up by other than God. But since love for power and dominion is a necessary attribute of every being, each of these gods would have sought to fight with Him for His sovereignty and snatch it away from Him so that he may be the sole king and sovereign, and may take all might and dominion to himself. God is far above this!
The verse’s argument in brief is: If there had been gods with Him as they claim, and if it were possible for other than Him to take ownership over anything of His sovereignty—which is a requisite of His Essence from Which everything emanates—then these gods would have sought to get a hold of His sovereignty. This is because the love for dominion and sovereignty is necessarily ingrained in all beings. Thus they would have wanted to bring Him down from His Throne in order to add His sovereignty to theirs, due to their innate love and inclination toward it. However, no one has a way to Him; He is far above that.
…then certainly they would have been able to seek a way to the Lord of the Throne: That is: They would seek to find a way to Him so that they may overcome Him and snatch His kingdom away from Him. “The Lord of the Throne” specifically describes God’s kingdom and dominion. Referring to Him by this attribute is to indicate that their seeking of Him is because He is the Lord of the Throne; they would seek to find a way to His Throne so that they may assume it.
This shows the irrelevance of what some exegetes have suggested: that the argument in this verse is similar to the argument in the verse: If there had been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder ().
The reason for this irrelevancy between the two arguments is that their premises are different. The argument in the current verse of discussion serves to deny any partners for God by saying that if there were any, they would have sought a way to the Lord of the Throne in order to overcome Him and seize His sovereignty. But the verse in Chapter 21 argues that having multiple gods would lead to different governances in the universe, which would in turn cause disorder and havoc in the world. Hence, the argument in the current verse is different than that of verse . The latter is similar to the argument in the verse: In that case would each god have certainly taken away what he created, and some of them would certainly have overpowered others ().
Likewise is the interpretation of some early exegetes, that what is meant by their seeking a way to the Lord of the Throne is that they would seek proximity and nearness to Him due to His dominance over them. The argument in this case would be: a) Had there been gods besides Him as they claim, those gods would have certainly sought proximity and nearness to Him as they would realize His preeminence and greatness; b) but one who acts like this is not a god; c) hence there are no gods besides Him.
This interpretation is also not applicable because the context of the verse testifies otherwise, as seen in the description of God as “the Lord of the Throne” and the subsequent verse: Glory be to Him and exalted be He in high exaltation above what they say (). This glorification and exaltation of God shows that the idea of there being other gods that would seek a way to Him involves a terrible consequence that does not befit His precinct of magnificence and grandeur. This consequence could be the idea of His sovereignty being open to others to seek a way to it and attack it, meaning that in and of itself His sovereignty can be transferred to or usurped by others.
سُبْحَـٰنَهُۥ وَتَعَـٰلَىٰ عَمَّا يَقُولُونَ عُلُوًّا كَبِيرًا ٤٣
(17:43) Say Glory be to Him and exalted (taʿālā) be He in high exaltation above what they say.
Taʿālā means the utmost degree of exaltation and elevation. That is why the adjective “high” (kabīran) has been added to the object ʿuluww (exaltation). This effectively means taʿālā taʿāliyan (that is, “Be He exalted to the utmost degree of exaltation”) .
This verse glorifies God of the polytheist belief that there are other gods besides Him, and that His sovereignty and Lordship are open to dispute and capture by others.
تُسَبِّحُ لَهُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتُ ٱلسَّبْعُ وَٱلْأَرْضُ وَمَن فِيهِنَّ ۚ وَإِن مِّن شَىْءٍ إِلَّا يُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِهِۦ وَلَـٰكِن لَّا تَفْقَهُونَ تَسْبِيحَهُمْ ۗ إِنَّهُۥ كَانَ حَلِيمًا غَفُورًا ٤٤
(17:44) The seven heavens declare His glory and the earth (too), and those who are in them; and there is not a single thing but glorifies Him with His praise, but you do not understand their glorification; surely He is Forbearing, Forgiving.
This verse and the one before it serve two purposes: 1. On one hand they glorify and exalt God, much like the verse: And they say: Allah has taken to himself a son. Glory be to Him (). 2. They complement the argument in verse (If there were with Him gods as they say…) by completing the premise. That is because the argument in that verse is an example of modus tollens (qiyās istithnāʾī), and God’s glorification by all beings in this verse denies the consequent in that conditional statement. It is as if it is said: If there were other gods besides Him, then His kingdom would have been prone to contention and attack, but His entire kingdom—including the heavens, the earth and all therein—glorify Him of that and testify that He has no partner in His kingdom. His kingdom originated from no one other than Him, will end in no one other than Him, is kept up by no one other than Him, and prostrates in humility to no one other than Him. Thus, no one other than Him can ever be characterized by sovereignty, and kingdom does not befit anyone other than Him. Therefore there is no Lord other than Him.
It could also be that these two verses (verses 43 and 44: Glory be to Him and exalted be He in high exaltation above what they say. The seven heavens declare His glory…) together compose the denial of the consequent in the above argument. The implied meaning is: If there were other gods besides Him, they would have certainly sought to overcome Him and dethrone Him from His kingdom. However, He is glorified of that by His own All- Emanating Essence which upholds everything. A necessary consequence of this [that is, of everything being kept up by Him] is that He cannot ever be divested of His Lordship and it cannot be transferred to anyone else. Likewise, His entire kingdom—which is the realm of heavens, the earth and all therein—glorify Him by their very essences (sing. dhāt) that totally depend on Him, such that if their essences are cut off or veiled from Him for the blink of an eye they would vanish and disappear into nonexistence. Thus, there are no gods besides Him, and His kingdom and Lordship cannot ever be sought by others. Contemplate this!
Either way, this verse ascribes glorification to every bit and piece of the visible world as it says: The seven heavens declare His glory and the earth (too), and those who are in them. They all glorify God and declare His clearness from the partners that they [the polytheists] ascribe to him.
Glorification (tasbīḥ) means to purify something by speech [that is, to state and claim the purity of something verbally], and the essence of speech is the unveiling of what one holds within by some way of conveying it and referring to it. The thing is that since human beings cannot convey all of what they want by virtue of their existential capacity, they have been forced to use words for this matter, and words are certain voices that have been conventionally assigned to certain meanings. People use these words and voices to indicate what they hold within, and this has become the basis of communicating ideas among them. Sometimes people convey their intended message by body language, such as the movement of hands or head, and sometimes they use writings or signs for this purpose.
Overall, anything that serves as a means of conveying an intended message is a speech or word (qawl, kalām). Now, if the very constitution of something serves this purpose, then it is speaking and talking by its very nature and constitution, even though it does not emit any sound or utter any words. It is for this reason that the Qur’an has attributed speech, word, command, revelation and the like of these matters to God, because they involve the unveiling of an intended meaning. God has called these speech and words even though they are not speeches and words in the everyday sense of them and as commonly understood by us who are accustomed to letters and human languages.
The existents that we see such as the sky, the earth and whatever is therein involve a patent unveiling of the unity of their Lord in His Lordship, and His purity from every defect and imperfection. Thus, they all glorify God.
This is because these beings in and of themselves are nothing but absolute need and sheer poverty toward Him, on Whom they depend in their essence, their attributes and their every state. Need is the strongest sign and proof for that which is needed, because the needy cannot subsist without it and cannot be severed from it. Therefore, since all of these beings [in the universe] are essentially deficient and have an existential need, they point to the All-Sufficient Being Who is perfect and complete in its Essence and Who is the Existantiator (al-Mūjid) of these beings. Furthermore, the relationship between each of these beings and the other beings that help perfect its existence and fulfill its essential deficiencies shows that its Existentiator is its Lord that controls everything and directs its affairs.
Next is the general system that governs all beings, gathers their dispersions, and links between them. This unified system reveals the unity of its Existentiator. It shows that all things reduce to Him alone, and all needs and deficiencies are fulfilled by Him alone. Hence, there is nothing and no one other than Him that is free from need and exempt from imperfection. He is the Lord, and there is no other lord; He is the All-Sufficient Who has no need; He is the Perfect that is free from every imperfection.
Therefore, every single being in the universe unveils the purity of its Lord from need and His clearness from imperfection by the virtue of its own need and imperfection. Even those who ignorantly attribute partners to their Lord or ascribe any imperfection or defect to Him are in fact establishing His purity from having partners and His clearness from every imperfection by this very act of attribution and ascription of theirs. This is because the meaning that is conceived in the mind of this person, the words that flow on his tongue, and everything that he uses to convey this idea [of polytheism] are all existential matters that, due to their existential needs, point to a Single Lord that has no partner and is free from every imperfection.
An example for how the very denial of such a denier is a confession for what he is denying is a person who claims that there is no one who can speak in the world and verbally testifies to this! His very testimony is the best proof against what he is claiming and testifying, and the more he repeats and emphasizes his testimony and the more people he takes as witness to it, the stronger will be the proof against it.
You may object: The mere unveiling of the purity of something is not called glorification (tasbīḥ) unless it is done with intention, and intention is a component of life, while most of these beings—such as the earth, the heaven and various inanimate objects—lack life. Therefore, the only resolution is to say that glorification in this verse is meant only metaphorically (majāz), in the sense that the very existence of these beings indicates the purity of their Lord.
The Book of God suggests that knowledge diffuses through all beings along with the diffusion of creation in them. Each being has a share of knowledge as much as its share of existence. This, however, does not necessitate that all beings have the same degree of knowledge, or that they have the same kind or form of knowledge, or that they are all knowledgeable of what mankind know, or that what they know should be understandable to mankind. God narrates from the organs of mankind: They shall say: Allah Who makes everything speak has made us speak (). He also says: He said to it [the heaven] and to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly (). There are many verses to this effect, and by the will of God we shall present a separate discussion on this later on.
Given the above, there is no created being except that it has some level of knowledge by itself. Its very being involves the desire to express and display its needy and deficiency that is fulfilled by the sufficiency and perfection of its One Lord Who has no partner. Thus it glorifies its Lord and declares His purity from every partner and imperfection.
This shows that there is no reason why we should interpret glorification metaphorically as any indication whatsoever, because a metaphorical interpretation can only be used when a literal interpretation is impossible. Likewise is the claim of some exegetes that some of these beings glorify God verbally, such as the angels and believing human beings, while some others glorify Him metaphorically and by their state of being, such as the inanimate objects that show Him by the virtue of their existence. Therefore, glorification in this verse includes both metaphorical and literal. What was just discussed above shows the weakness of this interpretation.
The truth is that the glorification of all beings is literal and spoken, except that being spoken (qālī) is not necessarily the same as being verbal and through sound waves, as we said above. We also had a relevant and insightful discussion on speech (kalām) toward the end of the second volume of this book [volume 4 of the English translation ].
Hence, when God says, “The seven heavens declare His glory and the earth (too), and those who are in them,” it affirms real glorification by the existents which they declare by their very beings and by their relationship with the other existents beings in the universe. They purify their Lord of the partners and aspects of imperfection that the polytheists attribute to Him.
…and there is not a single thing but glorifies Him with His praise: This part of the verse extends glorification to everything, because the first part of the verse only mentioned the seven heavens, the earth and those who are in them. It also adds praise (ḥamd) to glorification (tasbīḥ). Its purport is that just as everything glorifies Him it also praises Him for His beautiful attributes and actions.
Just as every being has some need and deficiency on the part of its own essence, it also benefits from some share of graceful blessings and bounties on His part that are bestowed upon it by Him. The very appearance of these beings in the universe is a display of their need and imperfection, which unveils the purity of their Lord from need and imperfection, and this is their glorification of Him. In like manner, the very appearance of these beings is also a display of the grace of their Lord that they have received, which unveils His beautiful attributes. This is how these beings all praise their Lord, because praise is nothing but lauding one for a voluntary virtue. Therefore, they all praise their Lord as they glorify Him. This is why He says: and there is not a single thing but glorifies Him with His praise ().
In other words: We can understand the glorification of the existents by considering them in the sense that they reveal what their Lord has through displaying their need and imperfection—while they are cognizant of this. And we can understand their praise by considering them in the sense that they reveal what their Lord has through displaying the bounties that they have—such as existence and other aspects of perfection. Finally, if we consider the beings in the sense that they reveal their Lord’s attributes of perfection or His purity from imperfections irrespective of their knowledge and cognition to what they are revealing, then they are being signs (āyāt) of God that point to him.
The verse says: but you do not understand their glorification (). This expression is the best evidence that glorification in this verse does not merely mean that the beings are signs of God’s purity from having partners or aspects of imperfection, because whether this statement is addressed to the polytheists in particular or all people in general—including believer and polytheist—they all understand how the beings are indicative of their Creator. Yet the verse is negating their understanding.
It is not worth listening to the opinion of some that the address is directed at the polytheists, and what is meant by their lack of any understanding is their lack of contemplating this reality and benefitting from it, which renders their understanding equivalent to no understanding. Similarly, some have said: They do not understand some aspects of the glorification of the beings, but the verse has negated all understanding from them as a form of generalization (taghlīb).
According to the first interpretation, the verse is saying that “it is as if they totally lack understanding,” and according to the second interpretation it is saying that “they lack total understanding.” Neither of these interpretations, however, is acceptable, because: 1. They do not match the context of argumentation, for the last verse was an argument for God’s purity. 2. Overall such loose and inaccurate expression (musāmaḥah) and generalization (taghlīb) are not typical of the Book of God.
It should be noted that the negation of the polytheists’ understanding seen below in verse (And when you recite the Qur’an…) is no support for the above interpretations, because that verse serves to negate their understanding of the Qur’an, which is not the same as negating their understanding of how existents indicate God’s purity. This understanding [of the existents’ indication] is necessary to complete the proof against them.
Therefore, the truth is that the glorification attributed in the verse to all things is real glorification. This assertion has recurred in His Book concerning the heavens, the earth, and everything and everyone therein. Some of these are cases that can only bear the real meaning [of glorification], for example He says: And We made the mountains, and the birds to celebrate Our praise with David (), and: Surely We made the mountains to sing the glory (of Allah) in unison with him at the evening and the sunrise (). A similar idea is seen in the verse: O mountains! sing praises with him, and the birds (). Given these verses, it is not sensible to interpret glorification as an expression of their state, or literally “the tongue of state or mood” (lisān al-ḥāl).
There are multiple narrations through both Shia and Sunni chains that objects have glorifications, including narrations about the glorification of pebbles in the hand of God’s Messenger. Some of these narrations will be presented below in Discussion of the Narrations, God-willing.
…surely He is Forbearing, Forgiving: That is: He gives respite and time instead of hastening to punishment, and He forgives whoever repents and returns to Him. Both of these attributes indicate His purity from every imperfection, because an implication of His forbearance is that He is not afraid of any loss of opportunity [to avenge], and an implication of His forgiveness is that He does not incur a loss due to forgiveness or effusion of mercy. These two together show that His sovereignty cannot ever be lost or reduced.
Some have said that this last part of the verse refers to mankind’s shortcoming in understanding the constant glorification of all things— including every bit of their own being—in the most expressive way. So mankind deserve being penalized for this mistake and shortcoming, but God does not hasten to their punishment due to His forbearance, and forgives it if He wills by His forgiveness.
This is a fine point and it entails that it is within the human being’s capacity to understand the act of glorification by himself and by other beings. Hopefully we may have the chance to explain this in an appropriate place, if God wills.
وَإِذَا قَرَأْتَ ٱلْقُرْءَانَ جَعَلْنَا بَيْنَكَ وَبَيْنَ ٱلَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱلْـَٔاخِرَةِ حِجَابًا مَّسْتُورًا ٤٥
(17:45) And when you recite the Qur’an, We place between you and those who do not believe in the hereafter a hidden barrier.
Apparently the reason why this barrier is described as “hidden” is that it is hidden from the senses, as opposed the veils and barriers that the people regularly use to cover something from something else. Therefore, it is about a spiritual barrier that is placed between the Prophet—as the reciter and carrier of the Qur’an—and the polytheists who do not believe in the hereafter. This barrier veils the Prophet from them and as a result they are unable to understand the reality of the Qur’an’s teachings; they are unable to believe in him; and they are unable to admit that he is a messenger that has come from God by the truth. That is why they turn away from him when he mentions God in Oneness, deny the hereafter insistently, and accuse him of being bewitched. This idea is confirmed by the verses that follow.
The verse describes the polytheists as “those who do not believe in the hereafter” because the denial of hereafter renders belief in God’s unity and the messengership void. Therefore, disbelief in the hereafter entails disbelief in all fundamental religious beliefs. Moreover, this description prepares the grounds for the following verses that talk about their denial of resurrection.
The implied meaning is: When you read and recite the Qur’an to them, We set a spiritual barrier that they are unaware of between you and the polytheists, who are those that do not believe in the hereafter—as a disapproving description of them. As a result, they cannot listen to the mention of God alone, they do not acknowledge your messengership from the Truth, they cannot understand the reality of the hereafter, and they do not believe in it.
The exegetes have some other interpretations for “hidden barrier” (mastūran). Some have said that the maf ʿūl form of mastūr means being characterized by that root. For example, rajūl marṭūb means one who is characterized by moisture nature (dhū ruṭūbah); makān mahūl means a place that is characterized by terror (dhū hawl); and jāriyah maghnūjah means a bondmaid who is characterized by coquetry (dhātu ghunj). This is seen in His words: Surely His promise shall come to pass (maʾtiyyā) (), where His promise is described as maʾtiyyā (in the form maf ʿūl), meaning a promise that is characterized by ityān (coming, occurring). However, this meaning usually comes in the form of fāʿil, such as lābin and tāmir.
It has been narrated from al-Akhfash that sometimes the object form (maf ʿūl) has the meaning of a subject (fāʿil). For example, maymūn means yāmin (auspicious) and mashʾūm means shāʾim (inauspicious). Likewise, the subject form sometimes means an object. For example, māʾin dāfiq [as in ] means madfūq (water that is poured forth) and mastūr sometimes means sātir (veiling, covering).
Some have said that this is a metaphorical or allegorical expression (majāz), because what is really hidden (mastūr) is that which is behind the barrier not the barrier itself.
Others have said that the verse involves an omission from the original: A barrier by which the Messenger is hidden from them.
Some have said: it means a barrier that is hidden by another barrier, referring to several barriers [that God places between the Prophet and them]. Others have said: It means a barrier that is hidden and unknown to be a barrier, meaning that they are ignorant of their ignorance. The last three interpretations are least likely.
وَجَعَلْنَا عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ أَكِنَّةً أَن يَفْقَهُوهُ وَفِىٓ ءَاذَانِهِمْ وَقْرًا ۚ وَإِذَا ذَكَرْتَ رَبَّكَ فِى ٱلْقُرْءَانِ وَحْدَهُۥ وَلَّوْا۟ عَلَىٰٓ أَدْبَـٰرِهِمْ نُفُورًا ٤٦
(17:46) And We have placed coverings (akinnatan) on their hearts and a heaviness (waqran) in their ears lest they understand it, and when you mention your Lord alone in the Qur’an they turn their backs in aversion (nufūran).
Akinnah is the plural of kinn, which, according to al-Rāghib, is what is used to protect something and cover it from others. Waqr means heaviness in hearing. Majmaʿ al-bayān says:
Nufūr is the plural of nāfir (one who is averse). This is a general rule that applies to all derived subject forms in the form of fuʿūl such as rukūʿ [plural of rākiʿ: one who bows], sujūd [plural of sājid: one who prostrates] and shuhūd [plural of shāhid: witness].
This verse serves as an explanation and interpretation of the barrier mentioned in the previous verse. It means that We cover their hearts by coverings and veils so that they may not understand the Qur’an; We place weights and heaviness in their ears so that they may not give ear to the Qur’an with submission and may not understand it with conviction and acceptance. All of this is a punishment for their disbelief [that is, covering the truth] and wrongdoing.
…and when you mention your Lord alone in the Qur’an they turn their backs in aversion: That is: When you proclaim monotheism and deny polytheism, they turn their backs in aversion, shirk and depart.
نَّحْنُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يَسْتَمِعُونَ بِهِۦٓ إِذْ يَسْتَمِعُونَ إِلَيْكَ وَإِذْ هُمْ نَجْوَىٰٓ إِذْ يَقُولُ ٱلظَّـٰلِمُونَ إِن تَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا رَجُلًا مَّسْحُورًا ٤٧
(17:47) We know best by what they listen when they listen to you, and when they take counsel secretly (najwā), when the unjust say: You follow only a man bewitched.
Najwā is an infinitive, that is why it is the same for singular, double, plural, masculine and feminine.
This verse serves as a justification for what was said in the last verse— that He has placed coverings on their hearts and heaviness in their ears, where “We know best by what they listen …” refers to the placement of heaviness [in their ears], and “when they take counsel secretly…” refers to the placement of covering [on their hearts].
God is saying: We know best about the ears by which they listen to you, and the hearts by which they reflect your message. This only makes sense because He is the Creator of these faculties and the Director of their affairs. Hence, when He says that He has placed coverings on their hearts and heaviness in their ears, it is a report that is the truest and most deserving of being accepted. “We know best by what they listen”: That is, We are best aware of their ears when they listen to you, and We are best aware of their hearts “when they take counsel secretly.” That is about when they whisper and exchange views with one another while they are careful not to speak aloud or raise their voice. The unjust means those who speak among them while they are unjust in their speech that “You follow only a man bewitched.” This very statement shows that they have not realized the truth.
The verse implicitly implies—rather, it explicitly indicates—that they [the polytheists] would not come openly to listen to the Qur’an from the Prophet as they were afraid of blame [from one another]. Instead, they would sneak by in disguise, and if they came across one another in that condition they would start blaming each other in whisper so that the Prophet and the believers may not find out about their presence. That is when some of them would tell others: You follow only a man bewitched (). This interpretation confirms what has been narrated about the context of revelation of this verse, which we shall present in the following Discussion of the Narrations by the will of God.
ٱنظُرْ كَيْفَ ضَرَبُوا۟ لَكَ ٱلْأَمْثَالَ فَضَلُّوا۟ فَلَا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ سَبِيلًا ٤٨
(17:48) See what they liken you to (ḍarabū laka al-amthāl, from ḍarb al-mathal)! So they have gone astray and cannot find the way.
Mathāl means description (waṣf). Ḍarb al-amthāl means describing one’s attributes and characteristics. The meaning of the verse is patent. The verse implies that there is no hope in their faith, as He says: And it is alike to them whether you warn them or warn them not: they do not believe ().
وَقَالُوٓا۟ أَءِذَا كُنَّا عِظَـٰمًا وَرُفَـٰتًا أَءِنَّا لَمَبْعُوثُونَ خَلْقًا جَدِيدًا ٤٩
(17:49) And they say: What! when we shall have become bones and decayed particles (rufātan), shall we then certainly be raised up, being a new creation?
Majmaʿ al-bayān says:
Rufāt is the debris and worn-out pieces of anything. The form fuʿāl is often used for anything that is broken and ground such as ḥuṭām (chaff), duqāq (flour) and turāb (dust). Al-Mubarrid says: Anything that is fully ground to the point of becoming a powder is called rufāt.
This verse continues the discussion of their lack of understanding of the Qur’an by talking about their doubt in the resurrection which is one of the most important assertions of the Qur’an. Indeed the resurrection is one of the clearest concepts that has been proven through both the revelation and the intellect, to the extent that God has described it in a few places in His Book as “there is no doubt in it” (lā rayba fīhi). This is while they [the polytheists] had no argument for its denial, except that it seemed improbable and unlikely to them.
One of the most important factors that made this improbability sound just to their hearts was their impression that death means annihilation, and it is very unlikely that something may be generated out of sheer nihility. This is seen in what they said: “when we shall have become bones and decayed particles”—meaning when nothing remains of our bodies after death other than bones, and even the bones decay, crumble and turn into particles—“will we then be turned into a new creation and return as human beings as we were before? That is afar (from probable) return [].” That is why He answers them back by reminding them of His absolute power and their first creation, as we shall see below.
قُلْ كُونُوا۟ حِجَارَةً أَوْ حَدِيدًا ٥٠
(17:50) Say: Become stones or iron.
Or some other creature of those which are too hard (to receive life) in your minds! But they will say: Who will return us? Say: Who created you at first. Still they will shake their heads at you and say: When will it be? Say: Maybe it has drawn nigh. ()
This is an answer to their doubt. Since they had talked about “becoming” bones (in What! when we shall have become; ) God orders His Prophet to challenge them by commanding them to “become stones or irons…” This is because the transformation of these things to a human being would be more difficult and less probable to them than the transformation of powdered bones.
These verses imply that God’s absolute power does not fall short of renewing the creation of anything that He wants, and it does not make any difference to Him whether that thing is bones, powder, stones, iron, or something else.
The implied meaning is: Tell them to be something harder than bones and powder such as stones, iron or some other creature that seems greater to their minds and less likely to have a human being created of it. Tell them to be whatever they wish, for indeed God will give them their initial creation again and resurrect them.
أَوْ خَلْقًا مِّمَّا يَكْبُرُ فِى صُدُورِكُمْ ۚ فَسَيَقُولُونَ مَن يُعِيدُنَا ۖ قُلِ ٱلَّذِى فَطَرَكُمْ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ ۚ فَسَيُنْغِضُونَ إِلَيْكَ رُءُوسَهُمْ وَيَقُولُونَ مَتَىٰ هُوَ ۖ قُلْ عَسَىٰٓ أَن يَكُونَ قَرِيبًا ٥١
(17:51) Or some other creature of those which are too hard (to receive life) in your minds! But they will say: Who will return us? Say: Who created you at first. Still they will shake their heads at you and say: When will it be? Say: Maybe it has drawn nigh.
That is: When you answer their doubt by telling them that they shall be resurrected regardless of what they become and how they transform, then they will say: “Who will return us to the human creation that we had?” So you tell them that God will do so, but refer to Him by a description that would leave no room for their doubt anymore: That He created them the first round while they were nothing. Say: “He Who created you at first will return you.”
Therefore, replacing the majestic name [Allāh] by “Who created you at first” is to prove the possibility of return and refute its unlikelihood by presenting a similar case [that is, a precedent].
…Still they will shake (fa-sa-yunghiḍūna, from inghāḍ) their heads at you and say: When will it be? Say: Maybe it has drawn nigh: Al-Rāghib says, “Inghāḍ is when one shakes his head in the direction of someone else as one who is surprised by him.”
The implied meaning is: When you knock them by the above argument—drawing on God’s power over everything and their first creation— you will see them shaking their heads in front of you in derision, derogation and contempt, saying: When will it be? In response, you tell them: Maybe it has drawn nigh (), meaning that there is no way to know about this for it is one of the hidden (ghayb) things that no one knows about except God. Nevertheless, God informs them about the attributes of that day where He gives them a description of the day instead of determining its time: On the day when He will call you forth, then shall you respond to Him, giving Him praise… ().
يَوْمَ يَدْعُوكُمْ فَتَسْتَجِيبُونَ بِحَمْدِهِۦ وَتَظُنُّونَ إِن لَّبِثْتُمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا ٥٢
(17:52) On the day when (yawma) He will call you forth, then shall you respond to Him, giving Him praise, and you will think that you tarried but a little (while).
Yawma is manṣūb in terms of inflection, which means that there is an implicit verb here: “On the day when ‘you are resurrected’ (tubʿathūna) He will call…” His call means His command to rise for the Day of Judgment, and their response means their acceptance of the divine call. “Giving Him praise” qualifies their state while they respond. The implied meaning is: You will respond while you are covered in His praise; that is, you will be in a state of praising Him. This means that you will count His resurrection and return of you as a good act for which its doer should be praised and admired. This is because on that day it will become clear to you that divine wisdom necessitates that the people should be resurrected for reckoning, and that there must be a second realm after the first.
…and you will think that you tarried but a little (while): That is: You will have the impression that you stayed in your graves after death but a short period. At that point you will realize how truly close this day [of resurrection] had been to you.
God has confirmed this impression of theirs but He has rejected the specific time periods that they will speculate. He says: He will say: You did tarry but a little—had you but known (it) (); And at the time when the hour shall come, the guilty shall swear (that) they did not tarry but an hour; thus are they ever turned away. And those who are given knowledge and faith will say: Certainly you tarried according to the ordinance of Allah till the day of resurrection, so this is the day of resurrection (). There are other verses in this regard.
Saying that “you will think that you tarried but a little (while)” indirectly counters their mocking views about the Day of Resurrection and how far away it is. It also supports the possible proximity of it that was mentioned above: Say: Maybe it has drawn nigh (). The verse is saying that soon you will deem it to be very close. Likewise, “shall you obey Him, giving Him praise” subtly counters their derision of this idea [of resurrection] and their amazement by it. That is: On the Day of Resurrection you will praise him even though today you see it unlikely and mock this matter.
وَقُل لِّعِبَادِى يَقُولُوا۟ ٱلَّتِى هِىَ أَحْسَنُ ۚ إِنَّ ٱلشَّيْطَـٰنَ يَنزَغُ بَيْنَهُمْ ۚ إِنَّ ٱلشَّيْطَـٰنَ كَانَ لِلْإِنسَـٰنِ عَدُوًّا مُّبِينًا ٥٣
(17:53) And say to My servants (that) they speak (yaqūlū) that which is best; surely Satan sows dissensions among them; surely the Satan is an open enemy to man.
The context suggests that “My servants” are the believers. Hence, their ascription to God is an honorary one. “They speak” is what the servants are being commanded to. That is why yaqūlū is majzūm in terms of inflection, because it is the object of an imperative. “That which is best” means a speech that is the best, meaning that it should be spoken with good manners and without harshness, swearing, or any other evil.
This verse and the next two follow the same context. Overall, they command to saying good words and adhering to propriety of manners in speech so that they may be secure from Satan’s sowing of dissension among them. Furthermore, they should know that the matter is up to God’s will, not up to the Prophet. The Prophet cannot waive the duties for those who subscribe to him and those whom he sees worthy of felicity. He cannot say anything that he wants, deprive others of every good, or say evil things about anyone, because one has nothing but the goodness of heart and excellence of manners. Indeed God has made some prophets to excel others in these qualities, and he privileged David by giving him the Psalms, which consists of good speech and the glorification of God.
This shows that before the migration, the believers used to converse with the polytheists, and at times they used to speak roughly with them and say harsh words. Perhaps they would confront them by telling them that they will go to Hell while the group of believers will go to Paradise thanks to the Prophet. These speeches would arouse the polytheists against them and only add to their enmity, leading them to increase their punishment and torture the believers, harm the Prophet more, and insist further in defying the truth.
Thus God ordered His Prophet to command them [the believers] to speak the best speech. This conforms to the context of the previous verses, because it was just mentioned above how the polytheists insulted the Prophet by calling him “a man bewitched” (), and how they ridiculed the Qur’an with all of its teachings about the origin and the end [of creation]. This should explain how these three verses [that is, this one and the next two] relate to one another, and how they relate as a set to the previous verses. Contemplate this!
And say to My servants (that) they speak that which is best…: This is a command to a command. The object of command is speaking that which is best. It is similar to His words: And have disputations with them in the best manner ().
…surely Satan sows dissensions among them: This is a justification for the above command.
…surely Satan is an open enemy to man: This justifies Satan’s sowing of dissension among them. Some have suggested that the command to “speak that which is best” forbids them from fighting with the polytheists and commands them to treat them peacefully instead. It is addressed to the believers who were in Mecca before the migration, as inferred from the narrations that define the circumstances of revelation of these verses (asbāb al-nuzūl). Hence, the verse is similar to His words: And you shall speak to men good words (). However, it should be clear to you that the justifications in the verse [that is, “surely Satan sows…” and “surely Satan is an open enemy…”] do not support this interpretation.
رَّبُّكُمْ أَعْلَمُ بِكُمْ ۖ إِن يَشَأْ يَرْحَمْكُمْ أَوْ إِن يَشَأْ يُعَذِّبْكُمْ ۚ وَمَآ أَرْسَلْنَـٰكَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَكِيلًا ٥٤
(17:54) Your Lord knows you best; He will have mercy on you if He wills , or He will chastise you if He wills ; and We have not sent you as being in charge of them.
As mentioned above, this verse and the next one complete the previous verse. Therefore, the first part of the verse is a continuation of what the Prophet has been ordered to tell the believers which began by “And say to My servants (that) they speak…” (). The subsequent part of the verse [that is, “and We have not sent you…”] is specifically addressed to the Prophet. Hence, there is no switch in the address of the verses.
It could also be that the first part of the verse is addressed to the Prophet and the believers together [just as the last verse] except that here they are being addressed directly in second person as opposed to third person. This complies more with the context of the previous verse and makes the verses more uniform and consistent, all being an address by God.
Either way, the first part of this verse (Your Lord knows you best; He will have mercy on you if He wills, or He will chastise you if He wills) provides a second justification for the command in the previous verse. It is saying that the believers must abstain from harsh words against others and from judging the felicity or wretchedness of the individuals, which is something that God knows best. For example, they should not say that “So-and-so is felicitous because he is a follower of the Prophet while soand-so is doomed,” or that “So-and-so will go to Paradise and so-and-so is destined for Hell.” Instead, they should leave this matter to their Lord and defer it to Him. It is saying: “Your Lord”—talking to the Prophet and others—“knows you best” and He will judge between you according to His knowledge to whom deserves mercy and whom deserves chastisement. “He will have mercy on you if He wills”: and He does not will this unless you believe and do righteous deeds, as He has clarified in His Book. “Or He will chastise you if He wills”: and He does not will this except in cases of disbelief and sin. “And We have not sent you”—O our Prophet—“as being in charge of them”: such that their affairs would be up to you, that you may decide whatever you want for whomever you wish, like giving to one and withholding from another.
Based on the above, it becomes clear that the uncertainty seen in “He will have mercy on you if He wills , or He will chastise you if He wills” is because God’s will differs according to one’s belief or disbelief, and one’s good deeds or evil deeds. It should also be clear that “We have not sent you as being in charge of them” is to forbid the believers from relying on the Prophet and their label as the followers of his religion as the means of their salvation. It is similar to His words: (This) shall not be in accordance with your vain desires nor in accordance with the vain desires of the followers of the Book; whoever does evil, he shall be requited with it (), and: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabeans, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord (), as well as other verses to this effect.
There are some other discussions with regard to this verse that we left out as there was no benefit in them.
وَرَبُّكَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَن فِى ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ ۗ وَلَقَدْ فَضَّلْنَا بَعْضَ ٱلنَّبِيِّـۧنَ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ ۖ وَءَاتَيْنَا دَاوُۥدَ زَبُورًا ٥٥
(17:55) And your Lord best knows those who are in the heavens and the earth; and certainly We have made some of the prophets to excel others, and to We gave to David Psalms
The first part of this verse elaborates the justification in the previous verse. It is as if it is said: How would your Lord not know you best while He best knows those who are in the heavens and the earth, and you are among them?
…and certainly We have made some of the prophets to excel others: This serves as a preparation for what follows: and We gave to David Psalms. This sentence shows David’s excellence based on his Book—the Psalms—as it comprises of the most excellent words in the glorification and praise of God, and as it encourages the believers to incline toward good words, and to adhere to proper codes and manners in their conversations and speeches.
The exegetes have discussed other points in the interpretation of this verse that we leave out; interested readers should refer to the extensive books of tafsīr.
Examining Narrations
(1) Concerning verse (If there were with Him gods as they say, then certainly they would have been able to seek a way to the Lord of the Throne) one of the Infallibles said: If the idols were gods as you suppose, then they would have climbed up to the Throne.
Author’s comment: What is meant by “climbing up to the Throne” is that they would have taken the affairs of the universe in their hands. Some have interpreted the Throne (ʿarsh) as the sphere (falak) that determines the dimensions [of the physical world] or a great luminous body that is above the physical realm, but there is no Qur’anic evidence for these meanings. Even if these definitions are correct, there is no implication between lordship and climbing over such a body.
(2) The Prophet said: When Noah was about to die he told his two sons, “I enjoin you to [utter] ‘Glory and praise be to God’ (subḥān Allāhi wa bi-ḥamdihi), for indeed it is the prayer of everything and everything receives sustenance by it.”
Author’s comment: What we discussed above about the meaning of the glorification (tasbīḥ) of the beings would clarify the link between the glorification of every being and its sustenance (rizq). This is because sustenance is determined according to need and request, and each being glorifies God by displaying its need and inadequacy, which show His purity from that.
(3) Abū al-Ṣabāḥ said: I asked Imam al-Ṣādiq about His words: And there is not a single thing but glorifies Him with His praise (). He said: “Everything glorifies Him with His praise. When we see a wall cracking, that is its glorification.”
Author’s comment: He [al-ʿAyyāshī] has also narrated this on the authority of al-Ḥusayn b. Saʿīd, from the Imam.
(4) Imam Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad narrated from his father: The Messenger of God prohibited branding the livestock or hitting them on the face, because they glorify their Lord with praise.
Author’s comment: The prohibition of hitting them on the face has also been reported by al-Kulaynī in al-Kāfī, with his chain of narration, on the authority of Muḥammad b. Muslim, from Imam al-Ṣādiq, from the Prophet, where the Imam then adds: “In another hadith he [the Prophet] said: Do not brand them on the face.”
(5) Imam al-Ṣādiq said: There is no bird or wild animal that is hunted in land or in sea except due to its neglect on glorification [of God].
Author’s comment: This idea has been narrated through several chains on the authority of Ibn Masʿūd, Abū al-Dardāʾ, Abu Hurayrah and others, from the Prophet.
(6) Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad said Once a man came to my father and said, “May my parents be your ransom! I read that God says in His Book: There is not a single thing but glorifies Him with His praise [].” He said, “This is indeed the case, as God has said.” He asked, “What about a dried tree, does it also glorify [God]?” He answered, “Yes! Have you not heard the sound of the wood that is used in a house? That is its glorification. So glory be to God at all times.”
(7) The Messenger of God said: Surely the ants glorify [God].
(8) The Messenger of God prohibited to kill frogs and said, “Its sound is [its] glorification.”
(9) Abū Ḥamzah said: Once we were with ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn when a flock of sparrows passed by us chirping. He said, “Do you know what these sparrows are saying?” “No,” we replied. He said, “I do not claim to have knowledge of the unseen, but I heard my father say: I heard ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib say, ‘When the birds start their day they glorify their Lord and ask Him their food for that day.’ This is their glorification whereby they ask for their sustenance of the day.”
Author’s comment: A similar account has been narrated [in al-Durr al-manthūr] on the authority of Abū al-Shaykh and Abū Nuʿaym’s Ḥilyat [al-awliyāʾ], on the authority of Abū Ḥamzah, from Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn. That narration goes as follows: Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn heard some sparrows chirping and said, “Do you know what they are saying?” I [Abū Ḥamzah] said, “No.” He said, “They glorify their Lord and ask Him for their food of the day.”
(10) ʿĀʾishah said: One day the Messenger of God came to me and said, “O ʿĀʾishah, wash these two clothes.” I said, “O Messenger of God, I just washed them yesterday.” He said, “Do you not know that clothes glorify [God] but when they are stained they cease to do so?”
(11) The Messenger of God said: The lifespan of all livestock, insects, ants, fleas, locusts, horses, mules, and all crawling creatures and other than them, is in glorification. Once their glorification stops God captures their souls. It is not up to the Angel of Death [to choose when they shall die].
Author’s comment: Perhaps what he means by “It is not up to the Angel of Death” is that the Angel of Death does not directly take charge of capturing their souls, but does so through the means of other angels and assistants. At any rate, the angels are intermediate means and instruments [in God’s actions].
(12) The Messenger of God passed by a group of people who were mounted on their animals [camels, horses, mules or donkeys] but were not moving. He told them: Mount them peacefully and dismount them peacefully. Do not take them as seats for your conversations in the paths and markets, for indeed it could be that an animal is better than its rider and more remembering of God than him.
(13) Imam al-Ṣādiq said: An animal has six rights over its owner: i) He should not load it beyond its ability. ii) He should not take its back as a seat for conversations. iii) He should feed it first when he makes a stop. iv) He should not brand it on its face. v) He should not hit it [on the face] because it glorifies [God]. 6. He should let it drink water whenever he passes by water.
(14) ʿAlqamah and Ibn Masʿūd have narrated: “Once when we were sitting and eating with the Prophet, we heard the food glorify [God] as the Messenger of God ate. Once Mukraz al-ʿĀmirī came to him and asked him for a sign [that is, a miracle]. He [the Prophet] took seven pebbles and they started glorifying in his hand.”
Abū Dharr’s narration says: “He [the Prophet] put the pebbles down on the ground and they stopped glorifying and became silent. Then he took them again in his hand and they started glorifying once again.”
Ibn ʿAbbās said: “The rulers of Ḥaḍramawt came to the Prophet and asked him, ‘How can we know that you are God’s messenger?’ The Prophet took a handful of pebbles and said, ‘These pebbles testify that I am God’s messenger.’ Thus the pebbles started glorifying [God] in his hands and they testified that he is God’s messenger.”
(15) The Prophet used to deliver sermons in Medina next to a column [of palm tree]. But then they built a pulpit for him as the number of attendants increased. When the Prophet sat on the pulpit to deliver sermon, the column groaned like a camel. So the Prophet went to it and patted it in honor, whereby it sobbed like an infant that is pacified.
Author’s comment: There are truly numerous narrations in a wide variety about the glorification of beings. Some may have been mistaken in thinking that this universal glorification of all things is a matter of sound and noise, and that all beings have one or many languages that consist of terms that have been set for meanings, just as human beings have words that unveil what they hold inside, except that our senses are blocked from their speech. However, you can see that this is a misconception.
What we concluded from the above discussion under this noble verse [] is that every being has a glorification which is a speech in the real sense of it: A conscious expression of the purity of its Lord by means of displaying its own imperfection in its essence, attributes and actions. This is [real] speech. Therefore, what has been narrated about hearing the glorification of pebbles in the hand of the Prophet, hearing the glorification of mountains and birds when David used to glorify, and other similar accounts, are all about understanding their real glorification in the true sense of the term through an inward realization. Once this is achieved, one’s inner senses report this reality accordingly in the form of conventional words and terms that convey the meaning that these people have understood.
This is similar to the appearance of transcendent meanings that are free from form (ṣūrah) in the form of familiar forms in dreams. For example, the reality of Jacob and his household appeared to Joseph in his dream in the form of the sun, the moon and the stars. Likewise are the other dreams that God has recounted in the story of Joseph, as discussed above [in Chapter 12].
Therefore, when the glorification, praise, testimony or other similar acts of the creatures are unveiled for someone, what he realizes first and foremost is its real meaning [inwardly], and then his inner sense (al-ḥiss al-bāṭin) narrates that meaning in the form of audible words that convey the realized meaning. God knows best.
(16) When Chapter 111 (Perdition overtake both hands of Abu Lahab…) was revealed, al-ʿAwrāʾ Umm Jamīl came by roaring while she had some pebbles in her hand: “He has rebuked our father! We hate his religion! We disobey his command!” The Messenger of God was sitting there next to Abū Bakr. Abū Bakr told him, “This woman is now coming and I am afraid that she sees you.” The Prophet replied, “There is no way that she shall see me,” and he recited a recitation to protect himself by it, as He says: And when you recite the Qur’an, We place between you and those who do not believe in the hereafter a hidden barrier (). So she came until she reached Abū Bakr and stood next to him, but she could not see the Prophet. Then she said, “O Abū Bakr! I have heard that your fellow has reviled me.” Abū Bakr said, “No, by the Lord of this House he has not reviled you.” So she went away while she was saying, “Quraysh knows that I am the daughter of their chief.”
Author’s comment: A shorter version of this account has been narrated through another chain of narration, on the authority of Asmāʾ, Abū Bakr and Ibn ʿAbbās. It has also been reported in Biḥār, on the authority of Qurb al-Isnād, on the authority of al-Ḥasan b. Ẓarīf, on the authority of Maʿmar, from Imam al-Riḍā, from his father, from his grandfather, in a narration where he discusses a series of the Prophet’s miracles.
(17) Concerning “In the Name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful” one of the two Imams [that is, Imams al-Bāqir and al-Ṣādiq] said: It is what deserves most to be uttered aloud, and it is the verse about which God has said: And when you mention your Lord alone in the Qur’an—meaning “In the Name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful”—they turn their backs in aversion (). The polytheists used to listen to the Prophet’s recitation, but when he would recite “In the Name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful” they would turn their backs and go away. Then, when he was finish with that they would come back and listen again.
Author’s comment: The same idea has been narrated on the authority of Manṣūr b. Ḥāzim, from Imam al-Ṣādiq. Al-Qummī has also narrated this in his Tafsīr without naming the Imam.
(18) Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. ʿAlī said: Why have you concealed “In the Name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful”? By God they have concealed the best of names, for indeed whenever the Messenger of God entered his home, the Quraysh would gather around him. He would then utter aloud and raise his voice saying: “In the Name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful,” whereby the Quraysh would turn away and escape. Thus God revealed: And when you mention your Lord alone in the Qur’an they turn their backs in aversion ().
(19) Al-Zuhrī said: I have been narrated that one night Abū Jahl, Abū Sufyān and Akhnas b. Sharīq went out to listen to the Messenger of God while he was performing prayer in his house. Each of them found a spot to sit and eavesdrop, unaware of the presence of the other two. So they spent the entire night listening to him. At dawn they all got up and left, only to meet one another in their way back. They started blaming each other and saying, “Do not do this again! If one of your ignorant followers sees you [doing this] then you would create serious doubts in his mind.”
They departed that day, but they all came back the next night and each sat at his spot. They spent the night again listening to the Prophet until dawn. In their way back they met again and they had the same conversation as the last night. Then they departed, but only to go there again and sit in their spots to listen to him the entire night. They met again at dawn on the way back. They told one another, “This time there is no way but to make a pledge not to do this again.” So they pledged with one another and departed. In the morning al-Akhnas went to see Abū Sufyān at his home and asked him, “Tell me what you think about what you have heard from Muḥammad.” He said, “By God I have heard things that I understand their meaning and what they refer to, and I have also heard things that I do not understand their meaning or what they refer to.” Al-Akhnas confirmed, “Me too, by the One to Whom I have pledged. ”
He then left Abū Sufyān and went to see Abū Jahl and asked him, “What do you think about what you have heard from Muḥammad?” He answered, “What have I heard!? We have competed with the children of ʿAbd Manāf in leadership: They have fed the people and we have fed the people; they have born burdens and we have born burdens; they have given charity and we have given charity. When they saw that we have kept up with them like two competing horses, they are now claiming that they have a prophet who receives revelation from the heaven. How can they be matched in this? Nay, by God we would never believe in him or confirm what he says.” Then al-Akhnas got up and left.
(20) Al-Kalbī said: The polytheists used to harass the Companions of God’s Messenger in Mecca. Therefore they used to complain to him, “O Messenger of God! Grant us permission to fight them back,” but he would tell them, “I have not been commanded to anything in this regard about them.” Then God revealed: And say to My servants… ().
Author’s comment: We said in the exposition of this verse that this account does not comply with the context of the verse. God knows best.
Or they would not have literally come to their full fruition. (Trans.) ↩︎
For example, it has been narrated that they used to chant labbayka (the first formula in hajj) as follows: “Here I come; there is no partner for You except a partner that is Yours: You own him and what he owns.” Likewise, Hindu and Buddhist scriptures are replete with the idea that all sovereignty belongs to God. (Auth.) ↩︎
Qiyās istithnāʾī includes both modus ponens (implication elimination) and modus tollens (denying the consequence). In the case of the latter, the argument is: 1) If A, then B. 2) Not B. 3) So not A. In case of the former, the second premise would be A, which changes the conclusion to B. (Trans.) ↩︎
All human beings have the capacity to gain this understanding as explained above. (Trans.) ↩︎
This is based on ancient medicine. It refers to a phlegmatic individual (balghamī) whose nature and temper (ṭabīʿah, mizāj) is dominated by wetness or moisture as opposed to dryness (yubūsah). Dihkhudā, Lughatnāmah, under marṭūb. (Trans.) ↩︎
Lābin means an animal (like a camel) that has milk (dhū laban) or a person that has or sells milk. Tāmir means a palm that has dates (dhū tamr) or a person who has or sells dates. (Trans.) ↩︎
Applicable to Arabic, not English. (Trans.) ↩︎
See verses , , , , , . (Trans.) ↩︎
This is because the last verse also started with an address to the Prophet. (Trans.) ↩︎
Tafsīr al-Qummī. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Aḥmad and Ibn Mardawayh, on the authority of Ibn ʿImrān. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of al-Nawfalī, on the authority of al-Sakūnī. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Isḥāq b. ʿAmmār. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Masʿadat b. Ṣadaqah. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Mardawayh, on the authority of Abū Hurayrah. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of al-Nasāʾī, Abū al-Shaykh and Ibn Mardawayh, on the authority of Ibn ʿUmar. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of al-Khaṭīb. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Khaṭīb’s Tarīkh. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of ʿAqīlī’s al-Ḍuʿafāʾ, Abū al-Shaykh and al-Daylamī, on the authority of Anas. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Aḥmad, on the authority of Muʿādh, on the authority of Anas. ↩︎
Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of al-Sakūnī. ↩︎
Ibn Shahr-Āshūb in al-Manāqib. ↩︎
Al-Manāqib, on the authority of Abū Hurayrah, Jābir b. ʿAbd-Allāh al-Anṣārī, Ibn ʿAbbās, ʿUbayy b. Kaʿb and Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Abū Yaʿlī, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Ibn Mardawayh, Abū Nuʿaym and al-Bayhaqī—both in al-Dalāʾil—on the authority of Asmāʾ b. Abū Bakr. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Zurārah. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of al-Bukhārī’s Tarīkh. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Isḥāq and al-Bayhaqī’s al-Dalāʾil. ↩︎
Majmaʿ al-bayān. ↩︎