Verses 56–65
These verses follow another course of arguments to prove God’s unity and refute the authority of the other gods that the polytheists used to subscribe to. The verses say that these gods cannot remove or transfer distress from their worshippers, but they are just like their worshippers in terms of being in need of God. These gods themselves seek the means of access to God, hope for His mercy and fear His chastisement.
The verses say that distress, extermination and punishment are in God’s hand. He has decreed in the book [of divine ordinance] that He will destroy every town before the Day of Resurrection or punish it with a severe chastisement. Indeed the ancient generations received divine signs and communications but they denied and rejected them, which resulted in an exterminating punishment being sent to them. That is why God does not send such signs to the later generations anymore, for He has willed not to hasten to their destruction. However, corruption will still spread among them and Satan will misguide them. Thus, the word [that is, God’s decree to punish the transgressors] proves true against them and therefore God will destroy them. Indeed God’s command will be executed.
Commentary
قُلِ ٱدْعُوا۟ ٱلَّذِينَ زَعَمْتُم مِّن دُونِهِۦ فَلَا يَمْلِكُونَ كَشْفَ ٱلضُّرِّ عَنكُمْ وَلَا تَحْوِيلًا ٥٦
(17:56) Say: Call (udʿū, from duʿāʾ) on those whom you assert (zaʿamtum, from zaʿm) besides Him, so they shall not control the removal of distress from you nor (its) transference.
Zaʿm—which is also pronounced as zuʿm and ziʿm—means any belief, but it is usually used for wrong beliefs. That is why it has been narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās that “Whatever the Qur’an calls zaʿm is a lie.”
Duʿāʾ and nidāʾ are the same, except that nidāʾ only refers to calling by voice, while duʿāʾ is sometimes used for other ways of communication such as hint or gesture. Concerning the difference between the two some exegetes have said:
Nidāʾ is when one says yā or ayā (lit. “O”) without uttering the name of the person, but duʿāʾ is only when the person’s name is also mentioned, such as yā fulān (“O so-and-so”).
The verse argues to refute what they worship other than God by saying that the god which deserves to be worshipped must be able to bring about benefit and protect against loss. This is a necessary requirement of lordship. The polytheists acknowledge this, and it is exactly for this reason that they have taken up these gods and worship them: because they hope for their benefit and fear their harm. However, what they call besides God are incapable of benefiting or harming anyone, and that is why they are not gods. The evidence for this is that their worshippers call them to remove distress from them or transfer it to others, yet they can neither remove nor transfer it.
How could they ever remove or transfer any distress on their own, and how can they meet any need or fulfill any want independently when they are themselves God’s creatures that seek means of access to Him, hope for His mercy and fear His chastisement—as the polytheists admit?
Hence it is clarified that “those whom you assert besides Him” are what they used to worship including the angels, the jinn and mankind. Their worship of the idols was also intended as a means of seeking proximity to those [living] beings [that the idols represent]. Likewise, they used to worship the sun, the moon and the starts as a means of seeking nearness to their spiritual realities—that is, angels.
Idols have no reality in and of themselves, as He has said: They are naught but names which you have named, you and your fathers (). What has been built out of wood or metal is nothing but an inanimate object. In this sense they are not idols to be prostrated, glorified, or used as means of seeking proximity [to God].
Furthermore, what the verse means by denying their control is to deny their control and power independent of being supported by God’s help and permission. The next verse serves as evidence to this: Those whom they call upon, themselves seek the means of access to their Lord… ().
One of the exegetes has said:
Apparently what the verse means by denying their control is to deny their full and complete power in the removal of distress. The unbelievers did not doubt that the power of their false gods comes from God, for they did not deny that their gods along with all of their attributes are God’s creatures, and that God’s attributes are stronger and more perfect than theirs.
This is what would complete the argument and prove the opponent wrong. Otherwise, there is no clear evidence that the jinn and angels that they used to worship besides God have absolutely no control in the removal of distress. And one cannot argue that the unbelievers supplicate to these gods earnestly but their requests are not fulfilled, because one could counter by saying that we equally see Muslims asking God earnestly for their requests yet their pleas are sometimes not granted.
Some have said that these verses deny control and power from their gods altogether, according to the Ashʿarite argument that the actions and attributes of all contingent beings directly emanate from God.
It should be noted that God has ascribed various forms of control and power to the angels, the jinn and mankind in so many verses that cannot be interpreted otherwise. However, He has ascribed the reality of control and power exclusively to Himself, as He says: The power is wholly God’s (). This shows that beings other-than-God have power over what they have power by God’s conferment of power, and they own what they own by God’s bestowal of ownership to them. No one is independent in power or ownership except Him. What other-than-God has in terms of power and ownership is a loan from God, and it has no impact except by His permission and will.
Based on this, there is no basis for interpreting the argument in this verse as a total denial of ownership and power from their gods—including the angels, the jinn and mankind—because the argument in the verse is saying that their objects of worships are not independent in ownership and power, and that in this sense they are just like their worshippers, for they are all in need of God and they seek means of access to Him. The true addressee of supplication and request is a power that is independent in its impact and influence. If one calls someone or something that owes its power and dominion to someone else who is the real owner of power and dominion, then the person’s call and request is in reality directed at the true and independent owner of power and dominion, not at one who has been endowed with them [by someone else’s endowment].
We also saw above that the exegete says that there is no clear evidence that these gods have absolutely no control in the removal of distress. In addition, one cannot draw on the idea that the unbelievers supplicate to these gods earnestly but their requests are not fulfilled, because one could counter that argument by saying that we equally see Muslims asking God earnestly for their requests but their pleas are not granted.
In fact, God has answered this objection in His Book. He says, and His speech is the truth: I answer the prayer of the suppliant when he calls on Me (), and: Call upon Me, I will answer you (). The unconditional form of these verses show that if a servant sincerely calls upon God; if he does not take his supplication lightly; and if his heart is not attached or inclined to other-than-Him, that is, he is completely cut off from others and has recourse to Him, then His call will certainly be answered. He has discussed sincerity in call and request in a verse further below which serves as a complement for the argument presented here. He says: And when distress afflicts you in the sea, away go those whom you call on except He; but when He brings you safe to the land, you turn aside… (). This shows that when distress afflicts you in the sea, you are cut off from everything and thus turn to Him alone, guided by your primary nature (fiṭrah) to call Him, and He answers this call of yours and brings you safe to the land.
What is understood from the above discussion is that God indeed answers His servant when he calls on Him with a sound and empty heart that has been cut off from all other than Him. This is while the others cannot answer their callers if the caller is cut off from God and calls that god alone.
This leaves no room for the above proposed objection by the polytheists, because their supplications are not answered when they call their gods, whereas they themselves see and acknowledge that whenever a distress afflicts them in the sea and they resort to God and ask Him alone, He rescues them to the land. And if the Muslims call Him on the land with the same sincerity and seriousness that others call Him in the sea, then their calls would not be rejected either and they would not be let down.
God has not contrasted their call of their gods with the Muslims’ call of their God so that one may object that both calls are the same in terms of not being answered. Instead, He has contrasted the polytheists’ call of their gods with their call of God in the sea when all of the means are cut off and all of whom they call go away except for God.
A subtle point in the expression of this verse is that it conveys His argument through the means of His Prophet by saying: Say: Call on those whom you assert besides Him (). This way, if the polytheists were to challenge him by the above objection [that is, that those who call on God are also rejected at times,] then he could call his Lord with sincerity and detachment from others and this supplication of his would have been surely granted.
أُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ ٱلَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ يَبْتَغُونَ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِمُ ٱلْوَسِيلَةَ أَيُّهُمْ أَقْرَبُ وَيَرْجُونَ رَحْمَتَهُۥ وَيَخَافُونَ عَذَابَهُۥٓ ۚ إِنَّ عَذَابَ رَبِّكَ كَانَ مَحْذُورًا ٥٧
(17:57) Those whom they call upon, themselves seek the means of access (al-wasīlata) to their Lord – whoever of them is nearest – and they hope for His mercy and fear His chastisement; surely the chastisement of your Lord is a thing to be cautious of.
“Those” is a subject, “whom” is its adjective, and “they call upon” is its connective clause (ṣilah). The pronoun “they” (in “they call upon”) refers to the polytheists. “Themselves seek” is the predicate of “those.” The pronoun “themselves” and the rest of the plural pronouns in the rest of the verse refer to “those” at the beginning of the verse. “Whoever of them is nearest” is an explanation for their seeking of means of access. It says that their seeking of means of access is due to search and request. This is what can be inferred from the context of the verse.
The exegetes have interpreted wasīlah as seeking to approach and reach someone. Sometimes wasīlah is used for the means by which one seeks to approach and reach someone. This second meaning is arguably more plausible given the context of the verse and the following part: whoever of them is nearest.
The implied meaning is, and God knows best: Those whom the polytheists call upon—including the angels, the jinn and the mankind—themselves seek the means of proximity with God. They look to see which one among them is nearest to Him so that they may also pursue his path and perform his acts in order to come close to Him like him. They hope for His mercy for every aspect of their being in which they get help from Him, and they fear His chastisement. That is why they obey Him and do not disobey. Surely the chastisement of your Lord is a thing to be cautious of, meaning that it should be avoided.
The idea of seeking proximity to Him through those who are nearest to Him is similar to His words: O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and seek means of nearness to Him (). However, this is different from what the polytheists and idolaters used to do. They started seeking nearness with God and advancing toward Him through the noble angels, the jinn and saints among mankind. But then they stopped worshipping God, hoping in Him and fearing Him, and instead they turned to worshipping those means, hoping for their mercy and fearing their wrath. Then they used idols and effigies as means of access to those gods. Therefore, they even forsook those gods and instead turned to worshipping the idols and seeking nearness to them by offerings and sacrifices.
At any rate, the polytheists claim to be seeking proximity to God by means of some of His servants or idols that are His creatures, but they only worship the means alone, only hope in them and only fear them, independent of God. Therefore, they set them as God’s partners by holding them to be independent of Him in lordship and worship.
If “those whom they call upon” refers to the noble angels, special righteous jinn, and the prophets and saints among mankind, then the meaning of “themselves seek the means of access to their Lord… they hope for His mercy and fear His chastisement” would be clear. But if “those whom they call upon” also includes others such as rebellious devils and sinful human beings like Pharaoh, Nimrod and others, then their seeking of access to God would refer to their subservience, prostration and glorification in the existential sense. Likewise their hope and fear would be their essential and existential hope and fear.
Some exegetes have said that all of the plural pronouns in the verse refer to “those” [at the beginning of the verse]. Then the meaning would be: Those prophets whom they [the polytheists] call besides God themselves call people toward God, or themselves call upon God in petition, and they seek the means of access to their Lord. But as you can see this is not a plausible meaning.
Al-Kashshāf has interpreted the verse as follows:
Their gods themselves seek the means of access—that is, nearness—to God. “whoever of them” means “including whoever of them…” That is: The nearest one among them also seeks means of access to God, let alone the rest that are farther away.
Or perhaps “seek the means of access to their Lord” means to “hanker after and seek earnestly” (yaḥriṣūna). As if the verse is saying: They greedily seek to be the nearest to God, and they do so by obedience and increasing their good deeds and righteousness. Even they hope in God and fear Him like the other servants of God, so how do they [the polytheists] take them to be gods?
There is nothing wrong with either of these two meanings, except that the context does not perfectly match them. The second interpretation complies better with the context than the first.
Others have said: The verse means that those whom they call upon, worship and believe to be gods, themselves seek the means of access and nearness to God by worshipping Him, and each of them strives hard to be the nearest to His mercy.
This meaning is certainly not supported by the text of the verse.
وَإِن مِّن قَرْيَةٍ إِلَّا نَحْنُ مُهْلِكُوهَا قَبْلَ يَوْمِ ٱلْقِيَـٰمَةِ أَوْ مُعَذِّبُوهَا عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا ۚ كَانَ ذَٰلِكَ فِى ٱلْكِتَـٰبِ مَسْطُورًا ٥٨
(17:58) And there is not a town but We will destroy it before the day of resurrection or chastise it with a severe chastisement; this is written in the Divine ordinance.
It has been said that “severe chastisement” means an exterminating punishment [in this world]. Hence, “destroy” which is used in contrast to it would mean the natural death of individuals. The implied meaning is: There is no town except that We will either make it perish before the Day of Resurrection, or that We exterminate it through punishment before the Day of Resurrection, because no town shall remain once the scroll of this world is rolled up by the advent of the Hour. He says: And most surely We will make what is on it bare ground without herbage (). That is why some exegetes have said that “destroy” applies to righteous towns while “chastisement” applies to unrighteous ones.
Concerning the link between this verse and the last, some exegetes have said that this verse is an admonition. Others have said: After the above discussions about the resurrection and God’s unity, this verse talks about some of the events that shall happen before the Day of Resurrection which shows God’s magnificence and confirms the previous discussions.
However, apparently this verse refers back to what was mentioned many verses back: And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the affluent ones, so they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction (). This is because the verses in this chapter consistently refer back to one another. The general message [of these verses] is to describe God’s unchanging custom of calling the people to the truth, which is followed by giving felicity to those who listen and obey, and chastising those who arrogantly disobey and transgress.
Therefore, what is meant by “destroy” is the destruction of a town by an exterminating punishment, as it has been narrated from the exegete Abū Muslim. And what is meant by “severe chastisement” is other forms of punishment such as a famine, dearth or other natural disaster that causes the people of a town to migrate elsewhere or destroys the town’s infrastructure.
Hence, the verse is implying that such towns shall be destroyed due to the corruption of their people and the transgression of the affluent ones therein (mutrafūn), and this is according to a decree from God, as the subsequent part of the verse indicates. This clarifies the link between this verse and the next: And nothing could have hindered Us… (). What is meant is: These people [the current polytheists] are inclined and disposed to transgression and denial of divine communications, which would result in the destruction and death of the deniers and refuters, for indeed We sent such communications to the ancient nations, but they rejected them and thus they were exterminated. Thus, if We were to send any of those tremendous signs to these people, then death and destruction will also befall them and that would roll up the scroll of this world. That is why We give them respite for a while, but eventually destruction will also befall these people and it will not miss them—as He has alluded to this custom in the verses: And every nation had a messenger… ().
Some exegetes have maintained that “town” in this verse means towns of the unfaithful and that the context of the verse does not support the inclusion of all towns. However, there is no proof for this claim.
…this is written in the Divine ordinance (al-kitāb): That is: The destroying of the towns or their severe chastisement is a sure decree that is written in “the book” (al-kitāb). This shows that al-kitāb here means the Guarded Tablet (al-lawḥ al-maḥfūẓ) in which, according to the Qur’an, God has written everything. For example He says: And We have recorded everything in a clear writing (); And there does not lie concealed from your Lord the weight of an atom in the earth or in the heaven, nor any thing less than that nor greater, but it is in a clear book ().
Some exegetes have a strange discussion here:
Some scholars—more than one—have held that everything has been clearly outlined with all of its qualities, causes and allotted time in it, that is, in the Guarded Table and the Divine ordinance. Then the majority of scholars have objected to this view by saying that it entails the infiniteness of dimensions, while there is both transmitted and rational proof against it. Hence, there is no resolution but to make an exception to the apparent universality of the verse by saying that it only pertains to things in this realm [of matter] or another similar exception.
Others have said that the verse can maintain its universality, but the way how everything is expressed in the Divine ordinance is such that it does not contradict the finiteness of dimensions. This means that the Guarded Tablet is similar to al-jafr al-jāmiʿ in its inclusion of all past and future events in this world and the Hereafter.
This discussion is based on the Tablet being a material tablet that is placed somewhere in the physical universe, and where the names, attributes and properties of all things are written, as well as every event that shall occur to them in every aspect according to their specific position in the general system that runs the universe.
But if it were to be a physical tablet as they have assumed, then it could not include the detailed names, attributes and descriptions of even its very material components, let alone including the other beings that only God can enumerate them along with their detailed attributes, states, what shall occur to them and the links between them. It is also clear that the proposed exception that what is meant is only the things in this world—or any other world—does not solve this problem either.
The view that the Tablet’s inclusion of all things is like the inclusion of infinite things in a something finite—just as the letters of alphabet include all the infinitely possible words and writings—means that the events are included in the Guarded Tablet as potentialities and possibilities, or in a condensed form. However, God’s description of this Tablet is explicit—or almost explicit—that the Tablet includes all things and events in the past, present or the future being actualized, differentiated, and characterized by a necessity that does not undergo any change. If their view were correct, then the any piece of paper with the letters of alphabet on it would have sufficed [as the Tablet].
This is not to mention that the very quality of something being physical and material means that it is changeable. Yet the Tablet is described as “Guarded” (maḥfūẓ), meaning that it is preserved from every possible change or transformation that can possibly be conceived. There is need for more solid evidence than what has been proposed to reconcile the ideas that the Tablet is both guarded and material. There are also other problems with the above discussion [that we will leave out].
The truth is that “the Clear Book” (al-kitāb al-mubīn) is the very “text” of the existents with the events that occurs to them in the sense that an effect necessarily follows its cause. This is the divine decree (qaḍāʾ) that does not fail or change—not from the aspect of the potentiality and contingence of matter. Calling it a “book” or a “tablet” is a symbolic expression to make this reality more tangible and comprehendible. We will discuss this topic in detail in its appropriate place, if God wills.
وَمَا مَنَعَنَآ أَن نُّرْسِلَ بِٱلْـَٔايَـٰتِ إِلَّآ أَن كَذَّبَ بِهَا ٱلْأَوَّلُونَ ۚ وَءَاتَيْنَا ثَمُودَ ٱلنَّاقَةَ مُبْصِرَةً فَظَلَمُوا۟ بِهَا ۚ وَمَا نُرْسِلُ بِٱلْـَٔايَـٰتِ إِلَّا تَخْوِيفًا ٥٩
(17:59) And nothing could have hindered Us that We should release signs except that the ancients rejected them; and We gave to Thamūd the she-camel—a manifest [sign]—but on her account they did injustice, and We do not send signs but to make (men) fear.
The connection between this verse and the previous verse was discussed above. In short, the previous verse implies that all people—the later generations and the earlier ones alike—deserve destruction and other severe chastisements because of their disposition and instinct to corruption and sin. Thus God has decreed to destroy every town or to chastise it with a severe chastisement. Here God continues: This is exactly what hinders Us from sending the signs that they ask for, because We sent the requested signs of the ancient generations but they rejected them and therefore We destroyed them. These people [the current generation] have the same traits and disposition as their predecessors. Hence, if We send the signs that they press for, they will also reject them, and then destruction will befall them inevitably as it befell their predecessors. However, God does not want to hasten to their punishment.
This shows that these two verses are related to the verses below that describe their requested signs and miracles: And they say: We will by no means believe in you until you cause a fountain to gush forth from the earth for us (). The verses of this chapter show that they were apparently revealed together at once.
And nothing could have hindered Us (manaʿanā, from manʿ) that We should release (nursila, from irsāl) signs…: Manʿ means to stop and hinder someone from doing what he wants. God judges and no one can repel His judgment, for He is the All-Dominant Conqueror. When He decrees something He only says to it “Be,” and it is. Therefore, when it is said that the ancient nations’ rejection of His signs have “hindered” Him from sending proposed signs anymore, it is meant in the sense that given their habit of rejection, sending signs would be devoid of any welfare or wisdom for a nation that God has not willed their chastisement and destruction, or that it would be devoid of any welfare for any nation because He knows that the majority of them will not believe in the requested signs.
Alternatively, you can say that manʿ (hinderance) in this verse is used metaphorically to indicate that the later generations are pursuing the same path as the ancient ones, and they rejected the proposed signs which resulted in their extermination, while God’s decree is to give respite to this nation.
Perhaps using the verb irsāl (release, issue, send) instead of ītāʾ (give) hints at the same point, because it is as if the signs have a disposition and tendency to come down, but their descent [that is, being released to descend] is hindered only by the rejection and corruption that is in the nature of the people.
…except that the ancients (al-awwalūn) rejected them…: Referring to the exterminated nations as al-awwalūn (lit. “the first ones”) implies that the current nation is the last of a chain whose beginning was the exterminated nations. Therefore, they are a single nation, whose last ones have the same makeup and drives as their first ones, and what applied to the previous ones also applies to the subsequent ones. That is why they used to repeatedly say: We have not heard of this among our fathers of yore ().
At any rate, the implied meaning is: We do not send the signs that they—the Quryash—have requested, because if We were to send them, they would not believe in them but would reject them, and thus they would qualify for an exterminating punishment. That would make them like the ancients, to whom We sent their proposed signs but they rejected them and therefore We destroyed them. However, We have decreed not to punish this nation except after some time and respite. This decree is understood from a few places in His Book.
The exegetes have suggested two other interpretations for this verse:
(1) We do not send the signs because We know that they will not believe, which makes the sending of the signs a vain and pointless action. That was the case with the previous nations, for they did not believe in the signs that were sent. This only applies to their proposed signs, but as with the signs that are needed to prove a prophet’s messengership, God certainly gives them to His messenger. Likewise, when there is an element of divine grace and mercy in sending a sign, He sends it out of His grace. However, in cases other than these two, there is no benefit in sending a sign.
(2) Your fathers and predecessors asked for signs much like what you are asking for, but they did not believe in them when the signs were sent. Now you are following their footsteps and example. That is why We do not send your proposed signs, for you will not believe in them as they did not. This interpretation is narrated from Abū Muslim.
It is difficult to differentiate between the second interpretation and the two discussed above, because its meaning would essentially reduce to either of those.
…and We gave to Thamūd the she-camel–a manifest [sign] (mubṣiratan) but on her account they did injustice…: Thamūd was the tribe of Prophet Ṣāliḥ , which was given the she-camel as a sign. Mubṣirah means manifest and clear, as He says: and We have made the sign–the day manifest (mubṣiratan) (). It is an adjective for the she-camel, or an adjective for an omitted noun: a manifest sign. The implied meaning is: We gave to Thamūd the she-camel which was clear and manifest, or which was a clear and manifest sign, but they did injustice to themselves through it, or they did injustice by rejecting it.
…and We do not send signs but to make (men) fear: That is: The wisdom behind sending signs is to warn and threaten. Signs that entail exterminating punishment involve warning of chastisement in this world, and the rest of the signs warn and threat chastisement in the Hereafter.
It is also quite likely that what is meant by “making people fear” is bringing about fear and awe by sending catastrophes that do not exterminate a society. This would relate to His words: Or that He may not seize them by causing them to suffer gradual loss, for your Lord is most surely Compassionate, Merciful (). Hence, the implied meaning would be: We do not send their proposed signs because We do not want to chastise them by an exterminating chastisement, but We only send signs that would make them fear, so that as they see them they would guard themselves against punishments that are more severe and dreadful. This interpretation has been ascribed to some of the previous exegetes.
وَإِذْ قُلْنَا لَكَ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ أَحَاطَ بِٱلنَّاسِ ۚ وَمَا جَعَلْنَا ٱلرُّءْيَا ٱلَّتِىٓ أَرَيْنَـٰكَ إِلَّا فِتْنَةً لِّلنَّاسِ وَٱلشَّجَرَةَ ٱلْمَلْعُونَةَ فِى ٱلْقُرْءَانِ ۚ وَنُخَوِّفُهُمْ فَمَا يَزِيدُهُمْ إِلَّا طُغْيَـٰنًا كَبِيرًا ٦٠
(17:60) And when We said to you: Surely your Lord encompasses men; and We did not make the vision [dream] which We showed you but a trial for men and the cursed tree in the Qur’an as well; and We cause them to fear, but it only adds to their great insolence.
Key Debate: The Vision and the Cursed Tree →
This verse consists of four parts. The meanings of their terms are clear, but the connection between these four parts is not fully elaborated. This is because of a concision in the middle two parts of the verse, where He does not explain what the vision that He showed His Prophet was. Neither is there anything elsewhere in His Book that could serve as an interpretation of this vision. There are some verses that talk about visions like (When Allah showed them to you in your dream as few; and if He had shown them to you as many you would certainly have become weak-hearted) and (Certainly Allah had shown to His Messenger the vision with truth: you shall most certainly enter the Sacred Mosque) but these verses relate to events that occurred after the migration, whereas the current verse of discussion was revealed in Mecca before the migration.
Similarly, one cannot know what is the “cursed tree in the Qur’an” that God has made “a trial for men,” because there is nowhere in the Qur’an where God talks about a tree and then curses it. He has mentioned the Zaqqūm tree and described it as a trial in verses (…or the tree of Zaqqum? Surely We have made it to be a trial to the unjust), but He has not cursed this tree in any of the verses where He has mentioned it. One may say that just the fact that this tree “grows in the bottom of the hell” [] and is a means of chastisement for the wrongdoers makes it cursed, but if that is the case, then Hell itself and everything that God has prepared for the punishment of its people would be cursed, including the angels of chastisement whom God has referred to in verse (And We have not made the wardens of the fire others than angels, and We have not made their number but as a trial for those who disbelieve). Yet, God has praised them by a very high praise where He says: Over it [Fire] are angels stern and strong, they do not disobey Allah in what He commands them, and do as they are commanded (). Likewise, God has described the hands of the believers as a means of chastisement for the unbelievers where He says: Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace (), but their hands are not cursed.
This shows that the verse is not intended to fully explain these two [middle] parts and clarify what is meant by the “vision” and the “cursed tree in the Qur’an” that has been made “a trial for men.” Instead, what is intended is only a general hint and reminder according to the context of the verses.
The context of these verses may provide some insight into some aspects of these two matters—that is, the “vision” and the “cursed tree.” The previous verses described the people by comparing their last ones to their first ones and their end to their beginning in terms of their neglect and rejection of God’s signs and communications. It was mentioned that human societies shall all taste God’s punishment one town after another and one group after another either by destruction or by a threatening punishment that does not destroy them. This thread of meaning is followed by the verses below (And when We said to the angels: Make obeisance to Adam; ) about the story of Satan (Iblīs) and his astonishing influence in misleading the children of Adam.
This shows that the mentioned vision and cursed tree are things that will happen to the people—or have already happened to them—which will be a trial for the people, will result in their corruption, and will make transgression and defiance take root in them. This can be seen in the last part of the verse (and We cause them to fear, but it only adds to their great insolence) as well as its beginning (And when We said to you: Surely your Lord encompasses men).
In addition, God is saying that this tree is cursed “in the Qur’an,” which shows that the Qur’an includes its curse. The apparent meaning of “the cursed tree in the Qur’an” is that its curse is to be found among the curses that exist in the Qur’an. In the Qur’an God has cursed Satan, the [unbelieving] Jews, the polytheists, the hypocrites, and other people such as those who die while they are disbelievers [], those who conceal what God has revealed [], those who offend God and His messenger [], and so on.
What is cursed here is a “tree” (shajarah). Shajarah includes plants that have a stem, as well as any root that grows branches such as the pedigree of an individual or the followers of a belief. Lisān al-ʿArab says: “When it is said that ‘so-and-so is of a blessed shajarah,’ it means that he has a blessed root [in terms of family background].” This meaning of shajarah is seen a lot in prophetic narrations. For example, he said, “I and ʿAlī are of the same tree (shajarah).” Along these lines is what he said when describing ʿAbbās: “One’s uncle is the twin root (ṣinw) of his father.”
If one contemplates and reflects on the above points, it becomes clear to him that the cursed tree is one of the cursed groups in the Qur’an that are similar to a tree in terms of growing, branching out from a root, and having a share of life and fruition; a group that is a trial of misguidance for this ummah. Among the cursed groups in the Qur’an only three of them match these qualities: 1. the followers of the Book (ahl al-kitāb); 2. the polytheists; and 3. the hypocrites. Their subsistence among the people and how they branch out can be either by reproduction and procreation—like a family in one of the three mentioned groups that would live among the people, corrupt the religious and worldly affairs of the people, and serve as a trial of misguidance to them—or by the emergence of a corrupt belief that is then followed by future generations who follow their ancestors.
Such description is not found among either the followers of the Book or the polytheists during the life of God’s Messenger, whether before or after the migration. In fact, God assured the people [that is, Muslims] that they shall be secure from the harm of these groups in a verse that was revealed toward the end of the Prophet’s life: This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me (). We discussed the meaning of this verse in detail above. (Eng. vol. 10)
Reflecting on the above discussion would clarify to the reader that the “cursed tree” refers to a group of hypocrites who would pretend to be Muslims, grow their roots among the nation either by birth or belief [that is, conversion to Islam], and serve as a trial for the people. There is no doubt that the context of the verse alludes to a connection between the two middle parts of the verse: “and We did not make the vision which We showed you but a trial for men and the cursed tree in the Qur’an as well” (), especially if one keeps in mind that these two parts are preceded by “And when We said to you: Surely your Lord encompasses men” and followed by “and We cause them to fear, but it only adds to their great insolence” (). The connection between the parts of this verse shows that the verse is concerned with some matter that God has encompassed, yet admonition and warning about it only creates more transgression.
It is inferred from this connection that God showed this cursed tree and some of its actions in Islam to His Prophet in a dream and now He is clarifying to him that this tree is a trial.
And when We said to you: Surely your Lord encompasses men…: Given the context of the verse, encompassment (iḥāṭah) here means an encompassment of knowledge (that is, omniscience). “And when” involves an implied omitted part. What is meant is: “And remember when We…” The verse is saying: And remember—following what was mentioned in the previous verses—that people are habitually inclined to persisting with the path of corruption and sin, and their descendants follow the example of their fathers in turning away from the remembrance of God and disregarding His signs. Since We told you that surely the knowledge of your Lord has encompassed men, He knows that this practice shall continue among them in the future as it did in the past.
…and We did not make the vision [dream] which We showed you but a trial for men and the cursed tree in the Qur’an as well…: Based on the above discussion, the implied meaning is: We did not make the cursed tree in the Qur’an—which you know by Our description—and what We showed you of their affairs in a dream except as a trial for the people. They are only to test and examine the people, and We have certainly encompassed them.
…and We cause them to fear, but it only adds to their great insolence: The pronouns “them” and “their” apparently refer to “men” (al-nās) in the previous part of the verse. What is meant by “causing them to fear” is threats and warnings by admonition and speech [in the Qur’an], or dreadful events and signs that are not exterminating punishments. The meaning is: We threaten the people, but these threats only increase them in transgression—and not any transgression, but great transgression. That is, not only do they not fear and stop their evil practices when We threaten them, but they respond to Our threats by further transgression and exaggerating in their enmity against the truth.
The context of the verse is one of condolence, as several exegetes have noted. God is comforting His Prophet by saying that the affairs that He showed him and introduced to him are tribulations, and His custom has ever been to test and trial His servants by tribulations.
All of our discussions above are confirmed by what has been narrated through some Sunni sources and is unanimously narrated from the Ahl al- Bayt that the “vision” (ruʾyā) in this verse refers to a dream that the Prophet had about the Umayyads, and that the “tree” is their pedigree. You will see these narrations below in “Examining Narrations,” by the will of God.
A group of exegetes have said—based on a narration from Ibn ʿAbbās—that “the vision that God showed to His Prophet” was His taking him on the night journey (al-isrāʾ), and the “cursed tree in the Qur’an” is the Zaqqūm tree. They have said that when the Prophet returned from his night journey and informed the polytheists about it [the Zaqqūm tree] they denied and ridiculed him. Likewise, they denied and ridiculed him when they heard the verses where God talks about Zaqqūm. Therefore, in this verse God is saying that the vision that We showed you—that is, the night journey and the Zaqqūm tree—are only made a trial for the people.
These exegetes have then faced an objection: that ruʿyā is a vision that a person sees in sleep (that is, dream), as lexicographers have specified, but the Prophet’s night journey occurred when he was awake. To this, some have answered by saying that al-ruʾyā is an infinitive from the root raʾā—just like al-ruʾyah—and therefore it is not limited to the state of sleep. Others have said that al-ruʾyā is what one sees at night, whether in sleep or awake. Others have said that the night journey is called al-ruʾyā since the polytheists used to call it a dream. Some have said that it is only based on the impression and assumption of the polytheists, just as the Qur’an has called their idols “gods.” It has been narrated that when the Prophet narrated the story of his night journey, some of them told him: “Perhaps that is something that you saw in sleep.” This is why God has called it a “dream” (ruʾyā) just as He has called the idols “their gods.” Others have said that the night journey is called al-ruʾyā because it was similar to a dream in the sense that it included strange visions, or due to its occurrence at night, or due to the speed of its occurrence. Some exegetes have said that the night journey was indeed in a dream, as it has been narrated from ʿĀʾishah and Muʿāwiyah.
They have also faced the objection that it does not make sense to call Zaqqūm a “cursed” tree because the tree itself is faultless. To this some have answered by saying that what is meant by cursing the tree is in fact cursing those who eat from it, as a form of metonymy that is used to emphasize the degree of their cursedness. Others have said that curse (laʿnah) means being far, and the Zaqqūm tree is in the farthest place from God’s mercy because it grows in the bottom of Hell []. Others have said that it is called cursed because its spathes are like the heads of devils [] and the devils are cursed. Others have said that Arabs call any unpleasant and harmful food “cursed.”
Concerning their claim that al-ruʾyā is an infinitive that is synonymous with al-ruʾyah (to see), as well as their claim that al-ruʾyā is anything that is seen at night, it should be noted that these claims are not supported by the lexical meaning of the term, and the exegetes have not provided any evidence from the Arabic literature—whether poem or prose—showing their claims. They have presented nothing but mere speculation.
Concerning the claim that the night journey is called al-ruʾyā (dream) because of what the polytheists used to say or suppose, it should be said that God’s Book is certainly clear from expressions on such basis. If that were the case, then there must have been some evidence [in the verse] to show in what sense the term has been used, and that it is not an affirmation by Him the night journey was really a dream. Furthermore, He has never referred to their idols as “gods” (ālihah) or “partners” (shurakāʾ), but He has referred to them as “their gods” (ālihatuhum) and “their partners” (li-shurakāʾihim). He has always attributed these gods and idols to the polytheists, and this attribution is the best sign for non-acceptance. Similarly, concerning the claim that the night journey has been called a dream metaphorically, it would be like any other metaphorical expression that requires some indicative evidence for its usage. Had there been any evidence showing a metaphorical usage here, the advocators of the idea that the night journey occurred in a dream would not have relied on the term al-ruʾyā (dream, vision) in this verse to prove their point [but they have done so]. Of course, that is only assuming that the verse is about the night journey to begin with!
As with the view that the night journey indeed occurred in a dream, its falsity was shown at the beginning of this chapter, in exposition of the first verse.
Now let us assess the answers that they have given to why the tree is made cursed in the Qur’an. Concerning the view that the tree is cursed on the account of its consumers being cursed, it is true that such use of expression is common in everyday conversations, but God’s Book must be set clear from such metonymy. It is rather the habit and manner of the imprudent and ignoble individuals that when they want to curse someone they start cursing his father, his mother and his family with all exaggeration, and when they want to swear at someone they start uttering profanities about his wife, his daughter, the sky that shadows over him, the earth that holds him, the house that shelters him, and the community that he mingles with. The Qur’an’s courtesy does not allow it to emphasize the cursedness of the people of Hell by cursing the tree whose fruit has been made a means of punishment for its eaters by God.
The view that curse (al-laʿn) means being far in its absolute sense and unconditionally is not supported by the lexical meaning of the term. Instead, what the lexicographers have specified—and is also found in the Qur’anic usage of the term—is that laʿn means being far from mercy and good. Concerning the view that the Zaqqūm tree is in a place that is farthest away from mercy as God has described: A tree that-grows in the bottom of the hell (), it should first be clarified what is meant by “mercy.” If they want to take mercy as Paradise, then they must provide a proof and evidence for it. If they say that it is mercy as opposed to punishment, then saying that this tree is cursed in the sense that it is farthest away from mercy and good would entail that Hell, all the punishments that God has prepared therein, as well as the guardian angels and the angels of punishment must all be cursed, under God’s wrath, and far from mercy. However, none of these things are cursed. It is only the human beings and the jinn who are punished there that are cursed, under God’s wrath, and far [from His mercy].
Concerning the claim that the tree is made cursed because its spathes are like the heads of devils [] and the devils are cursed, it should be said that it would not be a real ascription but a metaphorical one. This meaning is not what one primarily understands from the verse, and it also suffers from the objection to the first view [that is, lack of indicative evidence for a metaphorical usage].
The claim that Arabs call any unpleasant and harmful food “cursed” involves a metonymy because the verse is saying “tree” but what is intended is its “fruit.” Then it is saying that this fruit is cursed in the sense that it is unpleasant and harmful. In other words, it involves a metaphorical ascription of an attribute of the fruit—that is, “cursedness”—to the tree. Besides, it is not certain that one of the meanings of “cursed” is unpleasant and harmful. Rather, it is apparently the other way around: That the Arabs use curse (laʿn) in its famous meaning, and then they curse anything that does not please them of food, drink, and so on.
Concerning the narration attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās, even if the narration is correct, it is still not an authoritative proof (ḥujjah), especially given that it contradicts several narrations that involve the Prophet’s interpretation, including one from ʿĀʾishah, which shall be presented below.
Al-Kashshāf says:
“And when We said to you: Surely your Lord encompasses men” (): That is, remember when We revealed to you that surely your Lord encompasses Quraysh, which means We gave you the glad tiding of the Battle of Badr and your victory over them. This promise is also seen in verses: Soon shall the hosts be routed, and they shall turn (their) backs (); Say to those who disbelieve: You shall be vanquished, and driven together (), and other verses. The verse talks about this victory as if it has already happened, just as it is seen in other verses that inform about the [definite] future, and that is why it has used the past tense aḥāṭa (lit. “encompassed” or “has encompassed”).
When the two armies confronted each other on the day of Badr, the Prophet was under a shade with Abū Bakr and he supplicated to God as follows: “O God! I ask you your promise and pledge.” Then he went out having an armor on, and started encouraging the people and saying: Soon shall the hosts be routed, and they shall turn (their) backs ().
Perhaps God had shown him their falling places in a vision. When the Muslims arrived at the wells of Badr he said, “By God it is as if I see the place where they shall fall,” and he used to point to different places and say, “This is where so-and-so shall die” and “This is where so-and-so shall fall.” When the people of Quraysh [in the other army] heard about what God had revealed to His Messenger concerning the day of Badr and the falling places of the Quraysh that He had shown him in a vision, they started mocking, ridiculing and asking for its hastening in derision. And when they heard His words: Surely the tree of the Zaqqum is the food of the sinful (), they made fun of it and said, “Muḥammad says that Hell burns stones but then he says that there is also a tree that grows in there!” …These verses were sent in order to threaten the people—they were threatened by being killed in the Battle of Badr as a worldly punishment.
He [al-Zamakhsharī] then mentions that some exegetes have interpreted “the vision” (al-ruʾyā) as the night journey. It is clear that he is not satisfied with their interpretation even though he has quoted it as a narration. That is why he has inclined to interpreting al-ruʾyā as the Prophet’s vision of the Battle of Badr before its occurrence, followed by Quraysh’s derision of it when they heard about it.
Even though he [al-Zamakhsharī] has avoided the problems of interpreting the vision as the night journey, he has fallen into another problem that is certainly no lesser—if not greater—than that. The problem is that he has interpreted al-ruʾyā according to an impression and speculation that he has thought to be likely—that the Prophet might have seen the Battle of Badr and the falling places of the enemy in a dream before its occurrence, which then served as a trial for Quraysh as they ridiculed him. He has not provided any proof for this view other than saying, “Perhaps God had shown him their falling places in a vision.” How could he allow himself to interpret God’s speech based on some imagined possibility that has no support, that is not backed by any argument, and that has no evidence from the verses of Qur’an to prove it?
Some exegetes have said that “the vision” here refers to the Prophet’s dream that he shall enter Mecca and the Sacred Mosque, as God says in the verse: Certainly Allah had shown to His Messenger the vision… ().
The problem with this view is that the Prophet had this vision after the migration and before the Peace Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah, while the current verse was revealed in Mecca. We shall discuss this vision in detail later on by God’s will [under verse ].
Some exegetes have suggested that the cursed tree in the Qur’an is the Jews. This has been narrated from the exegete Abū Muslim.
We discussed above what could strengthen this view and what could weaken it.
وَإِذْ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلَـٰٓئِكَةِ ٱسْجُدُوا۟ لِـَٔادَمَ فَسَجَدُوٓا۟ إِلَّآ إِبْلِيسَ قَالَ ءَأَسْجُدُ لِمَنْ خَلَقْتَ طِينًا ٦١
(17:61) And when We said to the angels: Make obeisance to Adam; they made obeisance, but Iblis (did it not). He said: Shall I make obeisance to him whom You have created of clay (ṭīnan)?
Majmaʿ al-bayān says:
According to al-Zajjāj, ṭīnan is manṣūb in terms of inflection because it is an adverb (ḥāl). It means: You created him while he was out of clay. There might also be an omitted particle min (lit. “from” or “of”) here [that is, You created him of clay, or from clay]. Such omission is seen in the verse, “If you wish to engage a wet-nurse [for] your children (awlādakum)” () where what is meant is li-awlādikum (lit. “for your children”). It has also been said that ṭīnan is manṣūb because it serves as a distinction (tamīz).
Al-Kashshāf has suggested that ṭīnan could describe the state (ḥāl) of “whom You have created” not the state of the object of the verb “created” as al-Zajjāj has said. Others have said that ṭīnan cannot be an adverb (ḥāl) because it is jāmid (that is, not derived from another root).
This verse involves another reminder to the Prophet, about the story of Satan (Iblīs) and his conversation with God when he disobeyed the command to prostrate [to Adam]. It is intended to confirm what God stated above about the people—that they consistently disparage God’s commands, defy the truth, and neglect the signs of God, and that they will continue to be like this. It is reminding the Prophet of Satan’s story, of his pledge to bridle Adam’s descendants, of God giving him authority over those children of Adam who obey him and follow his call and the call of his cavalry and infantry, and of Satan not making any exceptions in his pledge except for God’s chosen servants.
The implied meaning is: And remember when your Lord told the angels: “Prostrate to Adam,” and they prostrated except Satan (Iblīs). Then it is presumably asked, “So what did Satan (Iblīs) do?” or “What did he say when he did not prostrate?” So it says [in response]: He rejected the command to prostration and said, “Shall I prostrate”—as a rhetorical question in disapproval—“to one whom You have created out of clay, while You have created me out of fire which is nobler than clay?”
What is presented here is an abridged version of the story because some parts of it are omitted. This abridgement is based on the context of these verses, because the purpose is to discuss the causes and factors that make the children of Adam to continue to sin and do injustice. The above verses first said that the ancient nations did not believe in the signs that they had proposed and requested, and that the later generations are also following their example and footsteps. Then it was said that there shall be other trials that will afflict this nation. Then here God reminds His Prophet about the story of Adam and Satan (Iblīs), which He has already narrated for him elsewhere. The story involves Satan’s pledge to mislead Adam’s descendants, his request from God to give him authority over them, and God’s positive response to his request with regard to the deviators [that is, those who deviate themselves]. Therefore, it should not be a surprise if the majority of the people incline toward the path of error and misguidance, turn to injustice and transgression, and deviate from the signs and communications of God, because they have been besieged by God’s tribulation from one side and by Satan along with his cavalry and infantry from another side.
قَالَ أَرَءَيْتَكَ هَـٰذَا ٱلَّذِى كَرَّمْتَ عَلَىَّ لَئِنْ أَخَّرْتَنِ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ ٱلْقِيَـٰمَةِ لَأَحْتَنِكَنَّ ذُرِّيَّتَهُۥٓ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا ٦٢
(17:62) He said: Tell me (araʾaytaka), is this he whom You have honored above me? If You should respite me to the day of resurrection, I will most certainly bridle his progeny (la-aḥtanikanna, from iḥtināk) except a few.
The letter kāf at the end of araʾaytaka is an extra letter that does not add to the meaning, but it is only used in addresses like demonstratives. “This he whom You have honored above me” refers to Adam, whom God honored and preferred over Satan by commanding Satan to prostrate to him, and by driving Satan away [from His precinct and proximity] when he refused to do so.
This shows that Satan inferred from the command to prostration that Adam has been honored over him. He made a similar inference when the angels told God: What! will You place in it such as shall make mischief in it and shed blood? (), which dared him to intend to misguide Adam’s descendants. Our exposition of that verse would prove helpful here.
According to Majmaʿ al-bayān, iḥtināk means cutting something from its root. When it is said that someone iḥtanaka so-and-so’s wealth or knowledge, it means that he took it all from him. Iḥtanaka al-jarād al-mazraʿ means that the locusts ate up the entire farm. Others have said that when someone ties a rope to the lower jaw (ḥanak) of an animal and pulls it, it is said: ḥanaka al-dābbata bi-ḥablihā. This is apparently the root meaning of the term. Therefore, iḥtināk means to bridle (iljām).
The implied meaning is: When Satan sinned and became subject to the divine wrath, he said: “My Lord! About this person whom You honored by commanding me to prostrate to him and driving me away for not doing so, I swear that if You respite me to the Day of Resurrection—which is the duration of the children of Adam’s stay in earth—I will bridle his progeny except a few—a few being Your chosen servants (al-mukhlaṣūn).”
قَالَ ٱذْهَبْ فَمَن تَبِعَكَ مِنْهُمْ فَإِنَّ جَهَنَّمَ جَزَآؤُكُمْ جَزَآءً مَّوْفُورًا ٦٣
(17:63) He said: Be gone (idhhab)! for whoever of them will follow you, then surely hell is your recompense, a full recompense (mawfūran).
The imperative idhhab (lit. “go!”) is not really an order, but it is said when one is being left on his own. It is like when you say to someone who opposes you, “Do whatever you want.” Some exegetes have suggested that it is indeed a real order, and it is a different expression for what He has said elsewhere: He said: Then get out of it, for surely you are driven away (). Mawfūr means complete or full. A full recompense is a remuneration that is paid in full, without any bit of it being put aside. The meaning of the verse is clear.
وَٱسْتَفْزِزْ مَنِ ٱسْتَطَعْتَ مِنْهُم بِصَوْتِكَ وَأَجْلِبْ عَلَيْهِم بِخَيْلِكَ وَرَجِلِكَ وَشَارِكْهُمْ فِى ٱلْأَمْوَٰلِ وَٱلْأَوْلَـٰدِ وَعِدْهُمْ ۚ وَمَا يَعِدُهُمُ ٱلشَّيْطَـٰنُ إِلَّا غُرُورًا ٦٤
(17:64) And entice (istafziz, from istifzāz) whomsoever of them you can with your voice, and collect (ajlib, from ijlāb) against them your forces riding (bi-khaylika) and on foot (rajilika), and share with them in wealth and children, and hold out promises to them; and Satan makes not promises to them but to deceive.
Istifzāz means to push, shove and arouse something swiftly and quickly. Ijlāb, according to Majmaʿ al-bayān, is to drive something [from behind] by jalabah, which is a loud cry.
Al-Mufradāt says:
The root meaning of jalb is to drive something [from behind] (al-sawq). It is used as jalabtu jalban. In a poem it says: “The pool pulls (yajlibu) things that are far [that is, it drives them toward itself].” Ajlabtu ʿalayhi means “I cried and called over him with harshness.” God says: And collect against them your forces riding and on foot ().
It has been said that the real meaning of khayl means “horses,” but there is no singular for it from the same root. Sometimes it is used to refer to riders on horses metaphorically. Rajil is the same as rājil, just as ḥadhir is the same as ḥādhir (careful) and kamil is the same as kāmil (complete). Rājil is the opposite of rider (rākib). Its contrast with khayl shows that here it means is the infantry of an army.
And entice whomsoever of them you can with your voice…: That is: Tempt anyone of Adam’s descendants that you can to disobedience by your voice. Those would be the people who accept Satan’s authority and follow him, as stated in Chapter 15. Apparently tempting and stimulating by voice is a metaphorical way of talking about goading one by false whispers and ideas that are devoid of all truth. Satan’s call has been compared to driving sheep and other animals from behind by shouting and yelling sounds of no meaning.
…and collect against them your forces riding and on foot…: That is: Call and shout over them to drive them to God’s disobedience by means of your assistants and armies, whether mounted or on foot. This expression apparently implies that Satan’s crew and assistants compose of some who do their job quickly—like riders in a battle—and other who are used in attacks that do no t demand speed—like the infantry. Therefore, cavalry and infantry metaphorically mean those who are quick and those who are slow in action, respectively. The analogy is to show how they perform their actions.
…and share with them in wealth and children…: Shirkah (association, cooperation, sharing) applies to possession and property. It necessitates that the associates or partners would each have a share in the benefit which is sought in wealth and children. Wealth is a property that is separate from the person, and likewise a child is a totally independent individual from his parents. Had it not been for the purpose of benefiting from them, human beings would neither consider wealth as property nor claim the ascription of children solely to themselves.
Satan’s association with mankind in their wealth or children means his partaking in their ownership and benefit. One example is when one earns wealth—which God has made a means of fulfilling the natural needs of mankind—through unlawful means. The person’s benefit from this is the fulfillment of his natural needs, and Satan’s benefit is that it is unlawful. Another possibility is when one earns money lawfully but spends it in a way against God’s obedience. This is also a benefit for both of them, while the person will be empty-handed from God’s mercy. An example of sharing with mankind in their children is when people beget children in an unlawful way, or when the child is legitimately born but he is raised in an improper manner and disciplined in a way that is not pleasing to God. There are other examples similar to these.
What we said is a plausible interpretation for the verse and it encompasses the various interpretations suggested by the exegetes. For instance, some of them have said that the wealth in which Satan partakes is any wealth that is earned unlawfully and acquired without any right; and the children in which he partakes include every child that is born out of wedlock. This is how Ibn ʿAbbās and others have interpreted the verse. Another interpretation narrated from Qatādah is: His sharing in their wealth is that he orders them to set their animals as sāʾibah, baḥirah, and so on, and his sharing in their children is that they make their children Jews, Christians and Magians.
Some have narrated from al-Kalbī: He has a share in unlawful incomes and unlawful intercourse. Others have said that Satan’s share in their children is when they name their children ʿAbd Shams (lit. “servant of the sun”), ʿAbd al-Ḥārith (lit. “servant of Ḥārith”) and so on. Others have said that his share in their children is the daughters that they used to bury alive, as narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās. Another view is that his sharing in their wealth is to have them make offerings for their gods, as narrated from al-Ḍaḥḥāk. There are further [similar] interpretations narrated from the early exegetes.
…and hold out promises to them; and Satan makes not promises to them but to deceive (ghurūran): That is: He does not promise to them except a deceitful promise, for he shows error in the form of rightness and falsehood in the shape of truth. Ghurūr is an infinitive (lit. “to deceive”) but here it serves as an active noun [that is, something that deceives]. Such usage [of an infinitive instead of an adjective] is to emphasize the extent and intensity of deception.
إِنَّ عِبَادِى لَيْسَ لَكَ عَلَيْهِمْ سُلْطَـٰنٌ ۚ وَكَفَىٰ بِرَبِّكَ وَكِيلًا ٦٥
(17:65) Surely (as for) My servants, you have no authority over them; and your Lord is sufficient as a Protector.
That is: God is sufficient as One Who watches over them and their actions, looks after their welfare, and controls their affairs. This is because a wakīl is one who takes care of the affairs of someone else, takes his place in direction and management, and runs his life. This shows that what is meant here is God’s special guardianship for non-deviators among His servants, as discussed in Chapter 15 [].
We already had different discussions concerning the story of prostration to Adam in Chapters 2, 7 and 15 that would provide much insight to the current verses.
Examining Narrations
(1) Concerning verse (And there is not a town but We will destroy it before the day of resurrection) Imam al-Ṣādiq said: “This is about dying, whether through natural death or otherwise.” In another narration about the verse he said: “It means destroying by being killed, dying or other forms of death.”
Author’s comment: It is likely that these hadiths pertain to the entire verse.
(2) Concerning verse (And nothing could have hindered Us that We should release signs…) one of the Infallibles said: It was revealed about Quraysh.
(3) About the same verse Imam al-Bāqir said: Muḥammad’s tribe asked him to show them a sign. Then Gabriel descended upon him and said: “Surely God says: And nothing could have hindered Us that We should release signs except that the ancients rejected them (); likewise if We send a sign to Quraysh and they do not believe in it then We will destroy them. That is why We withhold from sending signs to your people.”
(4) Ibn ʿAbbās said: The people of Mecca asked the Prophet to turn Mount al-Ṣafā to gold for them, and to push the mountains [surrounding Mecca] back so that they can cultivate the land. He was told [by God]: “If you want We can delay their request, and if you want We can give them what they have asked for, but then if they deny they will be destroyed as the nations before them were destroyed.” He [the Prophet] said: “I rather a respite for them.” Then God revealed this verse: And nothing could have hindered Us that We should release signs except that the ancients rejected them ().
Author’s comment: There are other narrations to this effect through other chains.
(5) The Messenger of God saw in a dream that the children of soand-so were jumping on his pulpit like monkeys. That grieved him such that he was not seen laughing again until he died. That is when God revealed: And We did not make the vision which We showed you but a trial for men ().
(6) Ibn ʿUmar said: The Prophet said, “I dreamt the children of al-Ḥakam b. al-ʿĀṣ on pulpits like monkeys.” It was about this dream that God revealed: And We did not make the vision which We showed you but a trial for men and the cursed tree in the Qur’an as well (), where the tree means al-Ḥakam and his children.
(7) Yaʿlā b. Murrah said: The Messenger of God said, “I was shown in a vision the children of Umayyah [that is, the Ummayads] on the pulpits of the earth. They shall soon take you in their possession and you will find them to be evil masters.” This really grieved the Messenger of God and that is why God revealed: And We did not make the vision which We showed you but a trial for men ().
(8) Al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī said: Once the Messenger of God was seen anxious. He was asked, “What is wrong, O Messenger of God?” He replied, “I saw in a dream that the Umayyads were taking turns on my pulpit.” They told him: “O Messenger of God! Do not worry, for that is only a share of this world that they will have.” That is when God revealed: And We did not make the vision which We showed you but a trial for men ().
(9) Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab said: The Messenger of God once dreamt the Umayyads on the pulpits and that grieved him. Then God revealed to him that this is only this world [that is, a temporary reign and power] that they will be given, and this consoled him. This is the interpretation of what He says: And We did not make the vision which We showed you but a trial for men (), where trial means tribulation (balāʾ).
Author’s comment: This narration is also reported in Tafsīr al-burhān, on the authority of al-Thaʿlabī’s Tafsīr, narrated from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab through an unconnected chain of transmission (marfūʿ).
(10) The Messenger of God said, “I saw in a dream that the children of al-Ḥakam—or the children of al-ʿĀṣ—are jumping on my pulpit like monkeys.” This enraged God’s Messenger, and he was not seen happy and laughing again after that until he died.
(11) Once ʿĀʾishah told Marwān b. al-Ḥakam: I heard the Messenger of God saying to your father and grandfather, “You are the cursed tree in the Qur’an.”
(12) Majmaʿ al-bayān says: The Prophet’s vision was that he saw monkeys going up and down his pulpit, which grieved and depressed him. Thus has been narrated from Sahl b. Saʿīd, on the authority of his father. Majmaʿ then adds: This has also been narrated from Imams al-Bāqir and al-Ṣādiq. Based on this hidden interpretation (taʾwīl) it has been said that the “cursed tree in the Qur’an” is the Umayyads.
Author’s comment: This is not a hidden interpretation (taʾwīl), but it is directly inferred from what has been revealed, as discussed above, unless what is meant is taʾwīl in its general sense, which is used for all interpretation.
This has also been narrated by al-ʿAyyāshī in his Tafsīr on the authority of many reliable transmitters such as Zurārah, Ḥamrān , Muḥammad b. Muslim, Maʿrūf b. Kharrabūdh, Salām al-Juʿfī, al-Qāsim b. Sulaymān, Yūnus b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ashall, ʿAbd al-Raḥīm al-Qaṣīr, from Imams al-Bāqir and al-Ṣādiq. ʿAyyāshī has also narrated it on the authority of Abū al-Ṭufayl, from Imam ʿAlī. al-Qummī has narrated this idea in his Tafsīr implicitly.
In some of these narrations there are others mentioned besides the Umayyads, which should be clear given our exposition above. We also reported some narrations under the verse And the parable of an evil word is as an evil tree () that the “evil tree” refers to two most sinful groups or individuals from Quraysh.
(13) Concerning verse (And We did not make the vision which We showed you but a trial for men) Ibn ʿAbbās said: This is not about a vision in a dream, but it refers to a vision by the eye [that is, in wakefulness] which the Messenger of God was shown on the night when he was taken on the night journey to Jerusalem (Bayt al-Maqdis), and “the cursed tree in the Qur’an” () is the Zaqqūm tree.
Author’s comment: This narration has also been narrated from Ibn Saʿd, Abū Yaʿlā and Ibn ʿAsākir, on the authority of Umm Hānī. Its implausibility was discussed in our exposition above.
(14) Concerning the same verse Ibn ʿAbbās said: When the Messenger of God was in Medina he once dreamt that he and his Companions were entering Mecca. So he set out for Mecca, however the dream was not due to be fulfilled that year, and thus the polytheists made him go back. As the Muslims returned from Mecca they started saying among themselves, “But how come he [the Prophet] was telling us that he will certainly enter Mecca?” Therefore this became a trial for them.
Author’s comment: The problem with this interpretation was discussed above in exposition, not to mention that it contradicts the previous narration.
(15) The Messenger of God said: “Indeed God has made Paradise forbidden to every foul-mouthed swearer that has little shame, who cares neither about what he says nor about what is said about him. If you investigate about such individuals you will indeed find that they are either of illegitimate birth or an associate of Satan.” Then someone asked, “O Messenger of God! Does Satan have associates among mankind?” He said, “Have you not read God’s words: And share with them in wealth and children ().” The man asked, “Is there anyone who does not care about what he says or what is said about him?” The Prophet answered, “Yes, that is one who bothers with the people and talks evil about them even though he knows that they will not let him get away with it [that is, they will also speak evil about him]. That is a person who does not care about what he says or what is said about him.” 16. Muḥammad b. Muslim said: I asked Imam al-Bāqir about Satan’s share in the verse, And share with them in wealth and children (). He said: “Any unlawful wealth is Satan’s share.” He then continued: “He [that is, Satan, or the wealth] stays with the person until he comes to his wife and therefore it becomes a part of his seed. The same is true about a man’s seed if it is unlawful.”
Author’s comment: There are many narrations to this effect, and they provide instances and applications of the general meaning of the verse that was discussed above in exposition.
What is said about his partaking in a man’s intercourse, seed or the like is a metaphorical way of saying that he has a share in all of these. It is a symbolic expression to convey the intended meaning, the like of which is very common in the narrations.
By modus tollens. (Trans.) ↩︎
Here are a few points to complement the author’s discussion: 1. One should also remember that this world is a place of test and trial. Therefore, God fulfills His promises in such a way that it would not eradicate the test of faith and belief. This is a fundamental principle that qualifies any promise or statement that is seen in Qur’an and hadith about this world. See verses , , . 2 “Call” or “supplication” (duʿāʾ) is not the same as “request” (suʾāl, masʾalah); and “answering” (ijābah) is not the same as the “granting or fulfillment of a request” (iʿṭāʾ). In verses and God has not promised to “grant” everything that one “asks for,” but He has promised to “answer” anyone who “calls” Him. Given that it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know (), granting every request even when they are against the person’s good or against God’s wisdom would not be a true and faithful answering of a call. See verses . 3. As the author has said, verses and are absolute and unconditional. Hence, we must be confident that God certainly “answers” all “calls,” but the way that He answers may not necessarily be the way that we expect, especially given that this life is only a short part of all realms of existence. (Trans.) ↩︎
This is because it does not comply with the context of the verse, especially given the previous verse. (Trans.) ↩︎
This is an all-encompassing science based on the numerical symbolism of letters. It is one of the occult sciences (al-ʿulūm al-ghaybiyyah) (Trans.) ↩︎
“Text” in the sense of being fixed at the level of their causes, not at their own levels. (Auth.) ↩︎
See verse . (Trans.) ↩︎
See verses , , , , . (Trans.) ↩︎
The first interpretation was the lack of any welfare or wisdom in sending sings, and the second one was God’s decree to give time and respite to the current generation. (Trans.) ↩︎
Ṣinwān are two palm trees that grow from the same root. (Auth.) ↩︎
That is, the first and last parts of the verse apparently pertain to both middle parts of the verse, and this shows that the two middle parts are related to one another. (Trans.) ↩︎
The strength is that Jews have indeed been cursed in the Qur’an and they can be described as a “tree.” The weakness is that according to verse they are no longer a threat or trial. (Trans.) ↩︎
In this case, ṭīnan (lit. “of clay”) is meant to set Adam apart from other beings that are created from other than clay, particularly from Satan himself as a jinn. The emphasis would be on clay: You created him out of clay [not out of something else]. (Trans.) ↩︎
This is a technical Arabic discussion that would make no difference to the English translation and meaning. It is about whether ṭīnan is ḥāl for the mawṣūl (that is, li-man) or for the maf ʿūl of khalaqta (which is omitted in the verse). (Trans.) ↩︎
In case of knowledge it would mean benefiting from one’s knowledge, but not stripping him of it. (Trans.) ↩︎
The meaning used in translation—“collect against them”—is a direct consequence of calling his cavalry and infantry against mankind. (Trans.) ↩︎
See verses and . ↩︎
These are titles for animals that the polytheists used to honor and not slaughter after certain years of delivery. Satan would have a share in this because it is making unlawful what God has made lawful. See verse for a full account of these animals and this custom. (Trans.) ↩︎
According to some narrations Ḥārith was a name of Iblīs. Majlisī, Biḥār al-anwār, 11:251-253, 54:323, 60:195, 60:226. (Trans.) ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Ibn Sinān. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-Qummī. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-Qummī says, on the authority of Abū al-Jārūd. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Aḥmad, al-Nasāʾī, al-Bazzāz, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Ṭabarānī, al-Ḥākim—who has authenticated it, Ibn Mardawayh, al-Bayhaqī’s al-Dalāʾil and al-Ḍiyāʾ’s al-Mukhtārah. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Jarīr, on the authority of Sahl b. Saʿd. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥātim. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥātim. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Mardawayh. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Ibn Mardawayh, Bayhaqī’s al-Dalāʾl and Ibn ʿAsākir. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-burhān, quoting from the book Faḍīlat al-Ḥusayn, from Abū Hurayrah with an unconnected chain of transmission (marfūʿ). ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Mardawayh. ↩︎
That is, without specifying the name of the Imam and the chain of narration. (Trans.) ↩︎
There are two different opinions on this. According to reports attributed to Imam ʿAlī the two individuals understood to be the most sinful (al-afjarān) from Quraysh are ʿAmr b. Hishām al-Makhzūmī, a.k.a Abū Jahl, and ʿUtbat b. Rabīʿa. Other reports name the two tribes of Ummayah and al-Mughirāh as being the “two most sinful ones” that are meant here. Markaz al-Muṣṭafā lil-dirāsāt al-Islāmiyyah, Āyāt al-Ghadīr (Qum: Markaz al-Muṣṭafā, 1409), pp. 357-358. (Trans.) ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Saʿīd b. Manṣūr, Aḥmad, al-Bukhārī, al-Tirmidhī, al-Nasāʾī, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, al-Ṭabarānī, al-Ḥākim, Ibn Mardawayh and Bayhaqī’s al-Dalāʾil. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Jarīr and Ibn Mardawayh. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-burhān, on the authority of al-Ḥusayn b. Saʿīd in the book al-Zuhd, on the authority of ʿUthmān b. ʿĪsā, on the authority of ʿUmar b. Udhaynah, on the authority of Sulaymān b. Qays, on the authority of Imam ʿAlī. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī. ↩︎