Verses 83–102
Introduction & Commentary
These verses tell the story of Dhū l-Qarnayn and contain one of the Qur’an’s heroic tales.
وَيَسَۡٔلُونَكَ عَن ذِي ٱلۡقَرۡنَيۡنِۖ قُلۡ سَأَتۡلُواْ عَلَيۡكُم مِّنۡهُ ذِكۡرًا ٨٣
(18:83) And they ask you about Dhū l-Qarnayn. Say: I will recite to you an account (dhikran) of him.
This means they ask about Dhū l-Qarnayn’s exploits. The evidence of that is the answer to the question which describes his exploits, but do not acquaint us with his personal details. It even stops at mentioning him by his nickname without going on to state his real name.
Dhikr is either:
1) A verbal noun meaning the object (that is, madhkūr), rendering a meaning of, Say: I will recite to you something worth mentioning (shayʾan madhkūran) about him, that is, about Dhū l-Qarnayn; or,
2) It means the Qur’an—God called it dhikr in many places. Based on that interpretation, it would all mean, “Say: I will recite to you some Qur’an of him”.
Minhu either means (something) about Dhū l-Qarnayn or, (something) from God.
It consists of what follows this verse from, Surely We established him in the land, right to the end of the story. The second interpretation (that is, that dhikr means some Qur’an) is more likely.
إِنَّا مَكَّنَّا لَهُۥ فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِ وَءَاتَيۡنَٰهُ مِن كُلِّ شَيۡءٖ سَبَبٗا ٨٤
(18:84) Surely We established (makkanna) him in the land and granted him means of access to everything.
The word tamkin means facilitating. One can either say makkantuhu (I enabled him) or makkantu lahu (I facilitated for him). Tamakkun in the land means the power to dispose of it as he wishes and wants through being made sovereign over it.
It may be claimed that it is derived from makan based on the mistaken belief that the (letter) mim is not one of the root letters. Based on this interpretation, tamkīn would mean giving stability and firmness such that it is not moved from its place by any competing impediment.
A sabab is a link and means. Thus granting him a sabab of everything means giving him some of everything he uses and benefits from, for example intellect, knowledge, religion, strength, body, abundance of money, soldiers, vastness of dominion, the (ability) to administrate well (ḥusn al-tadbīr) and so on to achieve important life goals. This is a blessing from Him bestowed upon Dhū l-Qarnayn and the great importance of his affair [is given] with the most eloquent explanation. What He says about his career, deeds, and utterances is full of wisdom and strength which is testimony to that.
فَأَتۡبَعَ سَبَبًا ٨٥
(18:85) So he followed a course (fa-atbaʿa sababan).
Itbāʿ means following a course and taking a path toward the place where the sun sets.
حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغۡرِبَ ٱلشَّمۡسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغۡرُبُ فِي عَيۡنٍ حَمِئَةٖ وَوَجَدَ عِندَهَا قَوۡمٗاۖ قُلۡنَا يَٰذَا ٱلۡقَرۡنَيۡنِ إِمَّآ أَن تُعَذِّبَ وَإِمَّآ أَن تَتَّخِذَ فِيهِمۡ حُسۡنٗا ٨٦ ۖ
(18:86) Until (ḥattā), when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea, and found by it a people. We said: O Dhū l-Qarnayn! you either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit.
The word ḥattā indicates an implied verb, that is, So he traveled, until, when he reached . . . The phrase, where the sun set, means the western edge of civilization at that time as evidenced by what follows, and found by it a people.
People say that ʿayn ḥamiʾa means an sea of black mud and that ʿayn means sea. Finding the sun setting in a black sea means a place at the sea shore beyond which there is no expectation of there being any more land. So he thought that the sun set in the sea because it was correct to say that it was the horizon. The description of this black sea applies to the Mediterranean. There are eternal islands in it which used to be sources of longevity but they subsequently sank.
An alternative recitation is fi ʿaynin ḥāmiyya, that is, a hot sea. That is true of the points in the Mediterranean close to the equator and near Africa. It may be that Dhū l-Qarnayn reached the shores of Africa on his journey to the west.
We said: O Dhū l-Qarnayn!: When the Qur’an says that He is saying something, it means revelation to a Prophet or communication via revelation, for example: And We said: O Adam! Dwell you . . . () And when We said: Enter this city . . . ().
It is also used for inspiration other than to a prophet, for example: And We revealed to Moses’ mother, saying: Nurse him . . . ().
Thus, it is clear that the words, We said: O Dhū l-Qarnayn!, does not mean that he was a prophet who received revelation because God’s speaking is not just restricted to revelation to a prophet.
It does not fail to give the impression that he was spoken to through the intermediary of a prophet who was with him. That would make his kingdom similar to that of Ṭālūt—one of the Israelites—who was advised and guided by their Prophet. The reason for this impression is that God is referred to in the third person.
The clause, you either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit (ḥasanan), means either punish those people or do something of benefit to them. Ḥasanan (benefit) is a verbal noun meant as the subject, taking the place of an implied noun which it describes. Alternatively, it is an adjective for emphasis. In the alternative, it is claimed that making ittikhādh al-ḥasan (doing them a benefit) the opposite of punishing suggests that it is preferable. It could be a declarative statement of two possibilities meant to indicate that both are permissible. Thus it is a declarative intended as a performative. What it would mean is: It is up to you whether you punish them or forgive them. However, what is likely is that it is interrogative—he is being asked what he is going to do: subjugate or forgive. This last alternative is the best because of the context of the answer which deals with punishment and doing good in different situations, As to him who is unjust, we will chastise him . . . And as for him who believes and does good, he shall have goodly reward. If the clause, you either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit, is a choice between alternative obligations, then, As for him who believes and does good, would have been an endorsement of it and an announcement of acceptance, which is of little point.
In short, it means: “We asked him what he wanted to do to them—punish them or do them good—after defeating them and becoming their ruler. He replied: ‘We will punish whoever of them is a wrongdoer and he will be returned to his Lord and He will punish him with an exemplary punishment. We will be good to pious believers and give them ease.’”
The object is not mentioned in, immā an tuʿadhdhiba (lit. either you punish) but it is in, immā an tattakhidha fihim ḥusnan (or you do them a benefit) because they were not all wrongdoers. It is not permissible to apply a punishment meant for people who deserve it to absolutely everyone but it is permissible to be good to the whole of a people among whom there are good and bad.
قَالَ أَمَّا مَن ظَلَمَ فَسَوۡفَ نُعَذِّبُهُۥ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِۦ فَيُعَذِّبُهُۥ عَذَابٗا نُّكۡرٗا ٨٧
(18:87) He said: As to him who is unjust, we will chastise him, then shall he be returned to his Lord, and He will chastise him with an exemplary (nukran) chastisement.
The words nukr and munkar mean “unprecedented,” that is, He will give them a punishment without precedent which they had not reckoned on and not expected. Ẓulm has been interpreted by some as “polytheism” and taʿdhīb as “killing.” On the basis of this interpretation, the clause, as to him who is unjust, we will chastise him, would mean, as for him who is a polytheist and does not resile from polytheism, we will kill him. This is the case if “who is unjust” is being contrasted with “who believes and does good”. However the likely reason for the contrast is that being unjust means all of the following: (1) polytheists; (2) those who do not believe in God at all; and (3) those who believe and do not attribute associates to Him but fail to do good, instead making mischief in the land.
If it had not been contrasted to believing, the likely meaning of ẓulm would have been making mischief without any regard to polytheism because the customary practice of kings who were just was to cleanse their land of the mischief made by mischief-makers. Similarly, there is no evidence for chastisement only meaning killing.
وَأَمَّا مَنۡ ءَامَنَ وَعَمِلَ صَٰلِحٗا فَلَهُۥ جَزَآءً ٱلۡحُسۡنَىٰۖ وَسَنَقُولُ لَهُۥ مِنۡ أَمۡرِنَا يُسۡرٗا ٨٨
(18:88) And as for him who believes and does good (ṣāliḥan), he shall have goodly reward (jazāʾan al-ḥusnā) and We will speak to him an easy word (yusran) of Our command (amrina).
The word ṣāliḥan is an adjective which takes the place of an implied noun which it describes. The same is true of al-ḥusnā. Jazāʾ (reward) is:
(1) A circumstantial qualifier, with the implied meaning: and as for whoever believes and does good work he will have good reward (al-mathūbat al-ḥusnā) in the circumstance of its being a satisfactory performance of obligation (ḥāl li-kawnihi mujziyan); or
(2) Specifying complement, with the implied meaning: whoever believes and does good work he will have good in terms of reward (min ḥayth al-jazāʾ); or
(3) Absolute object, with the implied meaning: We will reward him a reward (nujzihi jazāʾan) (that is, We will reward him greatly).
And We will speak to him an easy word (yusran) of Our command (amrina): The word yusr means that which is easy (maysūr). It is an adjective which takes the place of an implied noun which it describes. The likely meaning of amr is a command pertaining to obligations (amr taklifi). The implied meaning is: “We will say an easy word of Our command to him, that is, We will give him an obligation which is easy for him and not difficult for him.”
ثُمَّ أَتۡبَعَ سَبَبًا ٨٩ حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَطۡلِعَ ٱلشَّمۡسِ وَجَدَهَا تَطۡلُعُ عَلَىٰ قَوۡمٖ لَّمۡ نَجۡعَل لَّهُم مِّن دُونِهَا سِتۡرٗا ٩٠
(18:89–90) Then he followed (another) course. Until, when he reached the land of the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people to whom We had given no shelter from it;
That is, then he prepared a means to travel and then traveled toward the eastern horizon until he reached the desert to the east. He then found the sun rising over a nomadic people for whom We had provided no protection from the sun.
Satr, means protection from the sun. It can either be buildings and clothing or buildings only, that is, they lived on the land without having any houses to take refuge in or to protect themselves from the sun. They were also naked, without any clothing. Attributing that to God in the clause, to whom We had given no shelter from it, is an allusion to the fact that they had not yet averted to it, not learned how to build houses, put up tents or weave and sew clothes.
كَذَٰلِكَۖ وَقَدۡ أَحَطۡنَا بِمَا لَدَيۡهِ خُبۡرٗا ٩١
(18:91) Even so! (kadhalika) and We had a full knowledge of what he had.
The likely meaning of kadhalika (even so) is an allusion to the description just given of them. Comparing something to itself—based on the opinion that in a comparison the thing compared should be different to what it is compared with—renders a somewhat emphatic meaning. There are alternative suggestions for what the demonstrative pronoun “that” (dhalika) in kadhalika (lit. like that) refers to, but they are very different from what is ordinarily understood.
And We had a full knowledge of what he had: The pronoun (“he”) refers to Dhū l-Qarnayn. The sentence (grammatically speaking) is circumstantial. What it means is he adopted a means of travel, reached where the sun rises, and found such and such a people in a state, full knowledge of which We have. We know all the provision he has, what he will make happen, and what happens to him. It is likely that having full knowledge of what he had is an allusion to Dhū l-Qarnayn’s choice and that he acted through God’s guidance and commandment. He would only come or go out as guided or ordered—as alluded to what was said about his journey to where the sun sets, We said, O Dhū l-Qarnayn! . . .
The verse, that is, and We had a full knowledge . . ., in its allusory meaning is similar to: And make the ark before Our eyes and (according to) Our revelation . . . (), . . . He has revealed it with His knowledge . . . (), and . . . and He encompasses what is with them . . . ().
It is also said [that the verse means], (1) To state the greatness of his affair and that God alone has full knowledge of the particulars and minutiae; (2) to embellish what Dhū l-Qarnayn suffered on this journey. The difficulties and hardships he endured are within God’s knowledge and do not elude Him, or (3) to state the greatness of the course he took. However, the explanation we gave above is better.
ثُمَّ أَتۡبَعَ سَبَبًا ٩٢ حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَا بَلَغَ بَيۡنَ ٱلسَّدَّيۡنِ وَجَدَ مِن دُونِهِمَا قَوۡمٗا لَّا يَكَادُونَ يَفۡقَهُونَ قَوۡلٗا ٩٣
(18:92–93) Then he followed (another) course. Until, when he reached (a place) between the two mountains, he found on that side of them a people who could hardly understand a word.
The word sadd means mountain or any other obstruction blocking the way. Thus al-saddayn means two mountains.
He found on that side of them a people, that is, close to the two mountains.
The clause, who could hardly understand a word, is an allusion to their simpleness and the superficiality of their understanding. It may be said that it is an allusion to the strangeness of their language and its remoteness from all the languages known to them. That is not an unlikely explanation.
قَالُواْ يَٰذَا ٱلۡقَرۡنَيۡنِ إِنَّ يَأۡجُوجَ وَمَأۡجُوجَ مُفۡسِدُونَ فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِ فَهَلۡ نَجۡعَلُ لَكَ خَرۡجًا عَلَىٰٓ أَن تَجۡعَلَ بَيۡنَنَا وَبَيۡنَهُمۡ سَدّٗا ٩٤
(18:94) They said: O Dhū l-Qarnayn! surely Gog and Magog make mischief in the land. Shall we then pay you a tribute on condition that you should raise a barrier between us and them.
It is likely that those who said this were the people he found between the two mountains. Gog and Magog were two generations of people who came from behind the two mountains and raided them, killing, wounding or pillaging them all. The context provides proof of that because the pronoun used to refer to them is exclusive to rational beings, the barrier was erected between the two mountains and so on.
Shall we then pay you a tribute (kharajan) . . . : The word kharaj means what is taken from one’s money to spend on things one needs. They made him an offer to give him money in exchange for his erecting a barrier between them and Gog and Magog, to stop them from crossing the barrier and transgressing against them.
قَالَ مَا مَكَّنِّي فِيهِ رَبِّي خَيۡرٞ فَأَعِينُونِي بِقُوَّةٍ أَجۡعَلۡ بَيۡنَكُمۡ وَبَيۡنَهُمۡ رَدۡمًا ٩٥
(18:95) He said: That in which my Lord has established me (makkanni) is better, therefore you only help me with strength/workers, I will make a fortified barrier between you and them.
The basis of makkannī (established me) is makkananī but one of the nūns has been blended into the other. A radm is a barrier. Alternatively, it is said that it is a strong barrier. Based on this interpretation, his saying in response to their request for a sadd (barrier) meant giving them what they wanted and promising what was more than what they needed and expected.
Dhū l-Qarnayn had no need for the tribute they offered him in exchange for his erecting a barrier. He says: “The abundance and strength in which my Lord has established me and settled on me is better than the money you promise me so I have no need for it.”
Therefore you only help me with strength (quwwa): The word quwwa means that through which one has the power to do something. The phrase follows logically from what came of their suggestion to him—their request from him to build them a barrier. In short, it means—as for tribute, I have no need for it, but as for the wall, if you want, help me with what will enable me to build it, for example men and building materials—the examples mentioned were blocks of iron, molten brass, and blowing in the bellows. I will build you a strong barrier.
Thus, it is clear that what they meant by their offer to him of kharaj was the wage for making the barrier.
ءَاتُونِي زُبَرَ ٱلۡحَدِيدِۖ حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَا سَاوَىٰ بَيۡنَ ٱلصَّدَفَيۡنِ قَالَ ٱنفُخُواْۖ حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَا جَعَلَهُۥ نَارٗا قَالَ ءَاتُونِيٓ أُفۡرِغۡ عَلَيۡهِ قِطۡرٗا ٩٦
(18:96) Bring me blocks of iron; until, when he had filled up the space between the two mountain sides, he said: Blow, until, when he had made it (as) fire, he said: Bring me molten brass which I may pour over it.
The word zubar is the plural of zubra just as ghuraf (rooms) is the plural of ghurfa (room). Zubra means block. It is said that sāwa means the same as sawwa (to make two things level). In fact sawwa is an alternative recitation. Al-ṣadafayn is the dual form of ṣadaf which is one of the two sides of a mountain. Some say that it can only be said if there is another mountain next to it and parallel to it. It is one of those nouns that only come as part of a pair, for example zawj (spouse or one of a pair), ḍiʿf (half), etc. Qiṭr means copper or molten brass. Ifrāgh means pouring it onto the holes, flaws and gaps.
Atūnī zubar al-ḥadīd means “bring me blocks of iron” so that I can use them in the barrier. It is part of the quwwa (strength) he asked them for. He may have singled it out for mention and not mentioned stone or any other building materials because it is the main ingredient in building a strong barrier. The phrase, atūni zubar al-ḥadīd (bring me blocks of iron), is substitution of the specific for the general fa aʿinuni bi quwwatin (therefore you only help me with strength/might) or it implies, “He said . . .” This (style) appears frequently in the Qur’an.
Until, when he had filled up the space between the two mountain sides, he said: Blow . . . (Ḥattā idhā sāwā bayn al-ṣadafayni qāla anfukhū): There is brevity in these words through the use of omission and implication. They assisted him with might and brought him what he asked of them so he built them a barrier and erected it
The clause, he said: Blow, is likely that it is an instance of not wanting to mention the dependent object of the verb because it indicates the verb itself. What it means is placing the nozzles of the bellows on the barrier to heat up the iron in it and pour the molten brass onto the cracks and gaps.
Until, when he had made it (as) fire. . .: Again implication and brevity are employed. The implied meaning is: “Then he blew until, when he had made it—that is, what he blew the bellows onto, or the iron—fire, or like fire in terms of its appearance or temperature.” This is an example of metaphorical borrowing (istiʿāra).
He [Dhū l-Qarnayn] said: Bring me molten brass which I may pour over it: This means: “Bring me molten brass which I may empty and pour onto it to block the cracks and make the barrier solid, through which nothing can penetrate.”
فَمَا ٱسۡطَٰعُوٓاْ أَن يَظۡهَرُوهُ وَمَا ٱسۡتَطَٰعُواْ لَهُۥ نَقۡبٗا ٩٧
(18:97) So they were not able (fa mā sṭāʿū) to scale it (yaẓharūhu) nor could they (wa mā staṭāʿū) make a hole (naqban) in it.
The words isṭāʿū and istaṭāʿū mean the same thing (they are able, negated with mā in the Arabic). Ẓuhūr means being up high and climbing up high. Naqb means the same as thaqb, that is, hole. However, al-Rāghib explains in al-Mufradat fī gharīb al-Qurʾān that a hole in a wall or a skin is called a naqb while a hole in wood is called a thaqb. The plural pronouns refer to Gog and Magog.
There is implication and brevity in these words. The implied meaning is: Then he built a barrier and Gog and Magog were unable to climb it because it was so high or make a hole in it because it was so strong.
قَالَ هَٰذَا رَحۡمَةٞ مِّن رَّبِّيۖ فَإِذَا جَآءَ وَعۡدُ رَبِّي جَعَلَهُۥ دَكَّآءَۖ وَكَانَ وَعۡدُ رَبِّي حَقّٗا ٩٨
(18:98) He said: This is a mercy from my Lord, but when the promise of my Lord comes to pass He will make it level with the ground, and the promise of my Lord is ever true.
The word dakkāʾ means the same as dakk which is the most severe beating. It is a verbal noun (literally meaning beating flat) but it can be used to mean the same as the object of the verb (that is, beaten flat). Alternatively, it is claimed that it means al-nāqa al-dakkāʾ, that is, a camel which has no hump. Based on this interpretation, it is an example of metaphorical borrowing (istiʿāra). What it means is destruction of the barrier—so people say.
He said: This is a mercy from my Lord, that is, Dhū l-Qarnayn said after building the barrier: “This (the barrier) is a mercy from my Lord, that is, a mercy and protection by which the evil of Gog and Magog are held back from nations of people.”
In the words, but when the promise of my Lord comes to pass He will make it level with the ground, there is omission and implication. The implication is: “This mercy will remain until my Lord’s promise comes. When my Lord’s promise comes He will make it flat—level with the ground.”
The promise means either a promise from Him specific to the barrier—that it will be flattened close to the Hour, making this is an apocalyptic future prediction related by Dhū l-Qarnayn—or His general promise of the coming of the Hour, which will flatten mountains and destroy the world. He emphasizes what he says with (the words), and the promise of my Lord is ever true.
وَتَرَكۡنَا بَعۡضَهُمۡ يَوۡمَئِذٖ يَمُوجُ فِي بَعۡضٖۖ وَنُفِخَ فِي ٱلصُّورِ فَجَمَعۡنَٰهُمۡ جَمۡعٗا ٩٩
(18:99) And on that day We will leave a part of them in conflict with another part, and the trumpet will be blown, so We will gather them all together;
It is apparent from the context that the plural pronoun refers to the people. This is supported by the fact that the pronoun “them” in, We will gather them, definitely refers to the people because with plurals, what applies to one instance applies to all.
And on that day We will leave a part of them in conflict (yamūju) with another part: This is metaphorical borrowing. It means that on that day, they will be beaten around by the severity of the terror like the swelling of the sea, being pushed against each other. They will lose their order, and disorder and chaos will rule. Their Lord will turn away from them, His mercy will not encompass them and their affair will not be put right by His care.
It is as if the verse fills in the blanks of the clause, but when the promise of my Lord comes to pass He will make it level with the ground. It is similar to His words elsewhere: Even when Gog and Magog are let loose and they shall break forth from every elevated place. And the true promise shall draw nigh, then lo! the eyes of those who disbelieved shall be fixedly open: O woe to us! surely we were in a state of heedlessness as to this; nay, we were unjust ().
In any event, the verse is a prediction of a future apocalyptic event.
It has become clear from the above that the word, tark (We will leave) in the verse means what one immediately thinks it does—the opposite of taking. There is no need for what some people have said, that is, that tark actually means making (jaʿl), which is one of its antonyms.
The verse constitutes God’s words and is not the end of what Dhū l-Qarnayn said. The proof of that is the shift from the third person to the first person [plural of majesty] addressing another—the same as earlier on, in the clauses, Surely We established him, and, We said: O Dhū l-Qarnayn. If it had been the end of what Dhū l-Qarnayn said, it would have read, “He will leave” in line with, He will make it level with the ground.
And the trumpet will be blown: This is the second blow—which resurrects—as evidenced by words, so We will gather them all together; and the next verse, And We will bring forth hell, exposed to view, on that day before the unbelievers.
ٱلَّذِينَ كَانَتۡ أَعۡيُنُهُمۡ فِي غِطَآءٍ عَن ذِكۡرِي وَكَانُواْ لَا يَسۡتَطِيعُونَ سَمۡعًا١٠١
(18:101) Those whose eyes were under a cover from My reminder and they could not even hear.
This explains who are meant by the unbelievers. It is between them and remembrance of Himself that God put up a barrier. That is why it is appropriate to talk about their condition after mentioning Gog and Magog. So He put their eyes under a cover from remembrance of Him and took away the power of hearing from their ears. Thus the way between them and the truth—remembrance of God—has been taken away.
The truth can only be reached with one’s sight by looking at God’s words and being guided by them to what they indicate and guide toward, or with one’s hearing through listening to the wisdom, warning, stories, and lessons. Those people have no sight or hearing.
أَفَحَسِبَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوٓاْ أَن يَتَّخِذُواْ عِبَادِي مِن دُونِيٓ أَوۡلِيَآءَۚ إِنَّآ أَعۡتَدۡنَا جَهَنَّمَ لِلۡكَٰفِرِينَ نُزُلٗا ١٠٢
(18:102) What! do then those who disbelieve think that they can take My servants to be guardians instead of Me? Surely We have prepared hell for the entertainment of the unbelievers.
The question is rhetorical. Majmaʿ al-bayān says it means:
“Do those who reject belief in the Oneness of God think that they can take lords instead of Me to help them and stop My punishment from reaching them?”
This implied meaning is evidenced by (the sentence), Surely We have prepared hell for the entertainment of the unbelievers.
There is a second explanation narrated on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās, namely that it means:
“What! Do then those who disbelieve think that they can take gods instead of Me and that I will not get angry for My own sake and not punish them?”
A third explanation is that the clause, that they can take, is the first object of ḥasiba which means think. Its second object is implied. The implied meaning is:
“What! Do then those who disbelieve think that their taking servants as guardians instead of Me will be of any avail to them and stop them from being punished.”
The difference between this explanation and the two previous ones is that in the two previous explanations, an (“that”) and its relative phrase take the place of two objects. What is implied is part of the relative phrase. In contrast, according to this third explanation, an (“that”) and its relative phrase is only the first object. The second object is implied.
A fourth explanation is that an (“that”) and its relative phrase take the place of the two objects. The purpose of these words is to deny their ittikhādh (taking) being true ittikhādh, meaning that it is not ittikhādh at all. This is because ittikhādh can only be mutual, that is, both parties taking each other. Those taken disassociate themselves from them because they say: They shall say: Glory be to You! You are our Guardian, not they . . . ().
The four explanations are in descending order of merit, that is, the first one is the best and is supported by the context provided by the verses. These verses and indeed all the verses in the chapter are there to explain that people have been seduced by the embellishment of life in this world. They have become confused and rely on ostensible causes and take others as guardians instead of God. They think that their guardianship will suffice them, avail them, and keep harm at bay. The truth is that what they will encounter after the trumpet is blown and they are gathered contradicts that because the verse denounces what they think and believe after that had been their inclination. Next, the need to infer a second implied object is eliminated because the permissibility of an (“that”) and its relative phrase take the place of the two objects of ḥasiba, having done so in many other places, for example: Nay! do those who have wrought evil deeds think (ḥasiba) that We will make them like those who believe . . . ().
This is in spite of the fact that some grammarians have said that it is not allowed.
The chosen interpretation is supported by the subsequent verses, Say: Shall We inform you of the greatest losers in (their) deeds? Similarly, it is supported by the recitation attributed to ʿAlī and several others, a fa ḥasbu, meaning: “What! Is taking My servants as guardians instead of Me enough for them?”
The (plural) word “servants” in the sentence, that they can take My servants to be guardians instead of Me, is any of the angels, jinn, and perfect humans worshiped by idolaters.
Some exegetes say that what is meant by them is the Messiah, the angels, and other favored ones like them, but not shayṭāns because the annexation in this word ʿibādi (My servants) is mainly used to honor that which is annexed.
Author’s reply:
1) The context does not suit honoring, as is obvious.
2) Second, the qualifier min dūni (instead of me) explicitly indicates that “those who disbelieve” means the idolaters who do not worship God in spite of acknowledging His divinity, instead they only worship intercessor associates. As for the People of the Book, for example, Christians take the Messiah as a guardian but they do not deny God’s guardianship. On the contrary, they attest to both guardianship and then worship them both as one. This is something the reader should understand. Thus, the fact is that ʿibādī (My servants) does not include the Messiah and humans like him. Rather, it is exclusive to the idolaters’ gods. “Those who disbelieve” means the idolaters alone.
Surely We have prepared hell for the entertainment of the unbelievers, that is, something they enjoy when they first arrive in the hereafter. The hereafter is likened to a home where a guest stays. Hell is likened to entertainment with which a guest is honored when he first arrives. That which comes after two verses adds to the subtlety and beauty of this analogy—that no weight will be assigned to them on the Day of Resurrection. It is as if they will enter hell immediately. There is obvious scorn in the verse. It is as if it was brought on by the way they scorned [God] in this world, as in the verse, . . . and they mocked My Signs and My messengers.
Examining Narrations
Tafsīr al-Qummī says:
“When God’s Messenger related the account of Moses, his servant, and al-Khiḍr, the people asked him: Tell us about a traveler who traveled the world, east and west. Who was he? What was his story? Thereafter, God revealed, And they ask you about Dhū l-Qarnayn . . .”
Author’s comment: The details of this oral tradition came up in the discussion on the story of the Companions of the Cave. Something to the same effect is also narrated in al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥatim on the authority of al-Suddī and on the authority of ʿUmar—Ghufra’s freeman. The reader should realize that there is amazing discrepancy, contradiction, and incoherence in all the particulars of the story and in all the aspects of the oral traditions about the story of Dhū l-Qarnayn, narrated by both the Shī‘ah and the Sunnī on the authority of the Prophet and, by the Shī‘ah on the authority of the People of the Household, and, similarly the sayings narrated on the authority of the Companions and successors and treated like sacred hadith by the Sunnī. Furthermore, they contain odd things which a sound intellect shies away from, the mind thinks are impossible, and which the real world refutes. A critical researcher would not doubt if he compared them with each other and reflected on them that they are not free of interpolation, fabrication, and astonishing exaggerations in the story’s description. The strangest of them are those narrated on the authority of Jewish scholars who became Muslims, such as Wahb b. Munabbih, Kaʿb al-Aḥbar or those stories within which are clues which give the impression that they are taken from them—so these are of no help to us. They have been narrated wholesale, numerous and long as they are. We shall refer only briefly to some of the ways in which they differ and suffice ourselves with narrating what is mostly free of discrepancy.
One of the differences between them is over his personage. Most of them say that he was human. Others say that he was an angel from heaven whom God sent down to earth “and granted means of access to everything”. Al-Maqrīzī’s Khiṭaṭ says, on the authority of al-Jāḥiẓ’s Kitāb al-ḥayawan [The book of animals], that Dhū l-Qarnayn’s mother was human but his father was an angel.
Another of the differences is over his characteristics. Most narrations say that he was a pious servant who loved God, so God loved him and advised him and so he in turn dedicated himself sincerely to Him. Some say that he was a muḥaddath whom the angel came to and spoke to (yuḥaddithuhu). Others say that he was a prophet.
Another of the differences is over his name. Some say that his name was ʿAyyāsh, some say Iskandar, some say Marziyā b. Marzaba al-Yūnāni (the Greek) of the progeny of Yūnan son of Yāfith son of Noah, some Muṣʿab b. ʿAbdullāh of Qaḥṭān, some say Ṣaʿb b. Dhī l-Marāthid, the first of the Tubbaʿ as if he was al-Tubbaʿ Abū Karb and some say ʿAbdullāh b. Ḍaḥḥāk b. Muʿid. Many other possible names are suggested.
Another example is the reason he was called Dhū l-Qarnayn. Some say that he invited his people to God but they hit him on the right side (qarn) of his head and so he went away from them for a while. He then came back to them and invited them to God again, but they hit him on the left side (qarn) of his head. He then went away from them for a while. Then God gave him the means. Thereafter, he traveled the east and west of the earth. That is why he became known as Dhū l-Qarnayn. Some say that they killed him with the first blow. God then resurrected him. He invited them but they hit him and killed him again. God then resurrected him and raised him to the lowest heaven. He then sent him down to earth and granted him ease of access to everything.
Some say that after the second time he was resurrected, two horns grew where the two wounds were. God put light and darkness at his disposal. Then, when he came down to earth, he traveled and invited to God. He would roar like a lion and his horns would flash up and thunder. If any people were too arrogant for his invitation, he would impose darkness on them until they were forced to respond.
Some say that he had two horns on his head and he would wind a turban over them, hiding them with it. He was the first to wear a turban. He hid the horns from the people and no one apart from his scribe saw them. He told the scribe not to tell anyone but it became too much for the scribe so he went out to the desert and put his mouth on the ground. He then called out, “Why the king has two horns!” Thereafter God made two pieces of cane grow from his words. A shepherd passed by them and he liked them so he cut them and took them as a mizmār. When he blew it, “Why the king has two horns,” would come out of the two pieces of cane. It then spread around the city and so (Dhū l-Qarnayn) sent for the scribe and tried to make him talk and threatened to kill him if he did not tell the truth. Thereafter, he told him the story and Dhū l-Qarnayn said: This is a matter which God wanted to become public. He then took his turban off his head.
Alternatively, it is claimed that he became known as Dhū l-Qarnayn (having two horns) because he was king of two of the earth’s horns (qarnayan)—the east and the west. It is also said that he saw himself taking the two horns of the sun (qarnay al-shams) in a dream. The dream was interpreted to him as becoming king of the east and the west and he became known as Dhū l-Qarnayn. Alternatively, it is claimed that it was because he had two braids in his hair. It is claimed that it is because he was the king of Byzantium and Persia. Alternatively, it is claimed that it is because he had what looked like two horns on his head. It is claimed that it was because he had two golden horns on his crown. There are other explanations.
Another example of the differences [relate to] his journey to the west and the east. The greatest discrepancy is over this. It is narrated that the clouds were put at his disposal and so he would ride the clouds and travel to the west and east of the earth. It is narrated that he reached Mount Qāf, which is the green mountain surrounding the earth from which the sky’s green color comes.
It is narrated that he sought the spring of life and was given directions to it into the darkness. He entered the darkness. Al-Khiḍr was in his vanguard. Dhū l-Qarnayn was not blessed with drinking from it but al-Khiḍr drank and bathed in water from it. He was then granted everlasting life. These narrations say that the darkness was to the east.
Another example of the discrepancy is over the position of the barrier which he built. Some say that it is in the east, whereas others say that it is in the north. Some narrations exaggerated so much as to say that the length of the barrier, that is, between the two mountains, was a hundred farsakhs, its width was fifty farsakhs and its height was the height of the two mountains. He dug a foundation for it until he reached water and made rock its filling and copper its clay. He then raised it high with blocks of iron and molten brass and made yellow copper veins along it and so it became like a stained garment (burd).
Another example of differences [relate to] the description of Gog and Magog. It is narrated that they are Turks of the progeny of Yāfith son of Noah who made mischief in the land so a barrier was put up against them. Alternatively, it is narrated that they are not of the children of Adam. A number of narrations say that they are a proliferous people, not one of their males or females dies before he (or she) had begotten a thousand children, and that they are more numerous than the rest of humanity, to the point that some narrations say that they are nine times more numerous than the rest of mankind. It is narrated that they are so cruel and fierce that they do not pass by a single farm animal, predator or person without attacking and eating him, her or it, a single crop or tree without grazing it or body of water without drinking it and drying it up. It is narrated that they are two peoples, each of whom is made up of four hundred thousand people, each nation so numerous that they can only be counted by God.
It is narrated that there are three groups of them. One group of them is like rice—tall trees. The width of the second group is the same as their height—four arm spans by four arm spans. The third group is the toughest of them. They have two ears and use one to lay down on and the other as a blanket. The outside and inside of one of their ears is covered in fur to keep them warm while the outside and inside of the other one is covered in down to keep them cool in summer. They have hair straight all over their bodies, concealing them. It is narrated that one of them measures one, two or three handspans. It is further narrated that the ones who fought them have faces like dogs.
Another discrepancy is over the time of Dhū l-Qarnayn’s reign. Some say that it was after Noah (Nūḥ). It is narrated that it was during the time of and contemporary with Abraham. He went on hajj to the House [Kaʿba], met him and shook his hand. It was the first handshake on the face of the earth. Alternatively, it is narrated that it was during the time of David.
Another difference is over the length of his reign. Some narrate thirty years, others twelve years. There are other discrepancies which anyone who refers to the oral traditions telling the story in hadith collections will come across—especially al-Durr al-manthūr, Biḥār al-anwar, al-Burhān, and Nūr al-thaqalayn.
Kamāl al-Dīn says via its chain of narration on the authority of al-Aṣbagh b. Nubāta:
“Ibn al-Kawwāʾ came near ʿAlī’s face while he was on the pulpit and said: Commander of the Faithful, tell me about Dhū l-Qarnayn. Was he a prophet or an angel (malak)? Tell me about his horns. Were they made of gold or silver? He replied: He was neither a prophet nor an angel. His horns were neither gold nor silver. However, he was a servant who loved God and whom God loved. He sincerely helped God so God helped him. He was only known as Dhū l-Qarnayn because he invited his people to God, but they hit him on the side of his head. Thereafter he went away from them for a while, then came back to them. They then hit him on the other side of his head. There is among you the like of him.”
Author’s comment: It is likely that the narration says angel (malak) and not king (malik) because of the plethora (istifāḍa) of oral traditions on his authority and on the authority of another about Dhū l-Qarnayn’s being an angel. Thus, his denial of Dhū l-Qarnayn’s being a prophet or angel (malak) was a denial by him of the authenticity of what had been narrated on the authority of the Prophet in some oral traditions—that he was one of the angels. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb used to say that, as mentioned above.
“There is among you the like of him”—that is, the like of Dhū l-Qarnayn with regard to his two head wounds—is an allusion to himself because he was struck by ʿAmr b. ʿAbd Widd and by ʿAbd al-Raḥman b. al-Muljam and was martyred as a result of that. It is a narration reported by numerous sources—but not quite enough to be irrefutable—in various wordings on his authority both by the Shī‘ah and the Sunnī. The simplest worded is the one cited. The narrator’s hand has tampered with the meaning, making it appear in amazing forms and it is therefore corrupt.
Al-Durr al-manthūr says, Ibn Mardawayh cites on the authority of Sālim b. Abī l-Jaʿd that ʿAlī was asked whether Dhū l-Qarnayn was a prophet. He replied: “I heard your Prophet say: He was a servant who sincerely helped God, so He helped him.”
Al-Iḥtijāj by al-Ṭabrasī says, within a long hadith on the authority of al-Ṣādiq, the person asking the question said: Tell me where the sun sets. He replied: “One of the scholars has said: When it descends to the bottom of the dome, the orbit takes it round to the belly of heaven, perpetually rising until it sinks to where it rises, that is, it sets in a black sea, then breaks through the earth on the way back to where it rises and is confused under the Throne until it is granted permission to rise. Its light is taken away every day and it echoes red light, When he found it going down into a black sea . . . where it rises.”
Author’s comment: The verse, When he found it going down into a black sea . . . where it rises, is an explanation of the course taken by the sun from the time it sets until it rises again in its celestial orbit as per Ptolemy’s theory of orbit in those days, based on belief in the earth’s remaining stationary and heavenly bodies revolving around it. That is why he attributed it to one of the scholars.
The words, “that is, it sets in a black sea, then breaks through the earth on the way back to where it rises” are the words of one of the narrators of the oral tradition, not his words. Thus because of the narrator’s inability to understand, he explained God’s words, going down into a black sea, as the sun’s going down in a sea and disappearing in it, then swimming in it like a fish in water and breaking through the earth until it reaches the point where it rises, then going under the Throne, which according to the narrator’s belief, was a heaven above the seven heavens or a luminous body—the greatest in existence—placed above the seventh heaven. It remains there until it is granted permission to rise. It is clothed in red light and it rises.
The narrator is alluding in (the statement), “and is confused under the Throne until it is granted permission” to another oral tradition narration attributed to the Prophet, which says that the angels take the sun away after it sets and stop it under the Throne. Its light is taken away and it remains there without knowing what it will be ordered to do the following morning until it is clothed in light and ordered to rise.
He made the same mistake in explaining the Throne there as he made in explaining the sunset here and so he got further and further away from the truth.
There is no explanation of the Throne as the ninth planet or as a high luminous body in the shape of a bed in the Book or in any reliable Sunna. His understanding fabricated it. We have already discussed most of the oral traditions on the Throne at the beginning of part 8 of this book [i.e., the Arabic edition].
There is in his statement, “one of the scholars has said”—something of an allusion to the fact that this opinion was not approved by him. In spite of that he could not allow the truth to be told, but why not? If naiveté in understanding led to this among the people of his time with regard to a proposition which was easy to conceptualize, one shudders to think what they would have done if they had been taught something which cannot be confirmed by their outward senses or comprehended by the limit of their thought.
Al-Durr al-manthūr says that ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Saʿīd b. Manṣūr, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Mundhir, and Ibn Abī Ḥātim cite via ʿUthmān b. Abī Ḥāḍir Ibn ʿAbbās’ telling them that Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān recited the verse which is in Sūrat al-Kahf: going down into a hot sea. Ibn ʿAbbās said, I told Muʿawiya:
“We only recite ḥamiʾa (black). Muʿāwiya then asked ʿAbdullāh b. ʿUmar: And how do you recite it? ʿAbdullāh replied: As you have recited it. Ibn ʿAbbās said: So I told Muʿāwiya: The Qur’an was revealed in my household. Thereafter, he sent a note to Kaʿb asking him: Where do you find the sun setting in the Torah? Kaʿb told him: Ask the people of the Arabic language because they know best. As for myself, I find that in the Torah, the sun sets in water and clay. He pointed to the west. Ibn Abī Ḥāḍir said: How would you like my telling you something through which you could gain insight into hamiʾatin? Ibn ʿAbbās replied: What is that? I replied: Among what we find is what Tubbaʿ says referring to Dhū l-Qarnayn—about his fondness and pursuit of knowledge: Dhū l-Qarnayn lived as a Muslim; other kings served him and mobilized troops for him; he came to the east and the west seeking means of access to rule from a wise guide, and he saw the sun disappear at sunset into a sea which had khalb and thaʾṭ ḥarmad.
“Ibn ʿAbbās asked: What is khalb? I replied: Clay, in their language. He asked: What is thaʾṭ? I replied: Mud. He asked: What is ḥarmad? I replied: Black. Ibn ʿAbbās then called a servant and told him: Write what this man says.”
Author’s comment: The hadith does not fit in so well with the ways of reciting considered to be incontrovertible and which people have settled upon. Ibn Hishām’s al-Tījān cites the same hadith but adds that Ibn ʿAbbās recited these lines of poetry to Muʿāwiya and Muʿāwiya asked him what khalb, thaʾṭ, and ḥarmad mean. He replied: Khalb means mud and thaʾṭ means the clay underneath it. Ḥarmad means the pebbles and stones underneath that. He then cited the qaṣīda (ode). This discrepancy warns of some problem with the oral tradition.
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī says on the authority of Abū Baṣīr on the authority of Abū Jaʿfar regarding God’s words: whom We had given no shelter from it. He replied: “They did not know how to build houses.”
Tafsīr al-Qummī says about the same verse (whom We had given no shelter from it): “They did not know how to make clothes.”
Al-Durr al-manthūr says: Ibn Mundhir cites on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās about the words, Until, when he reached between al-saddayn. He said: The two mountains—Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī says on the authority of al-Mufaḍḍal: I asked al-Ṣādiq about the words, I will make a fortified barrier (radman) between you and them. He replied:
“Dissimulation (taqiyya). So they were not able to scale it nor could they make a hole in it []. When you act with taqiyya, they cannot get the better of you by cunning. It is impregnable protection. It has become a barrier between you and your enemies in which they cannot make a hole.”
It also says on the authority of Jābir, on his authority, regarding the same verse: [It means]Taqiyya.
Author’s comment: Both oral traditions are examples of demonstrating the Qur’an’s continuing relevance and applicability and are not proper exegesis.
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī says on the authority of al-Aṣbagh b. Nubāta on the authority of ʿAlī: And on that day We will leave a part of them in conflict with another part, means the Day of Resurrection.
Author’s comment: The context indicates that it is one of the portents of the Hour. It may be what is meant by the Day of Resurrection. It may also be correct to call some of the events leading up to it the “Day of Resurrection.”
It [Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī] also says on the authority of Muḥammad b. Ḥakīm:
“I wrote a note to Abū ʿAbdullāh asking: Can the soul know? He said: No. So I asked: God says: Those whose eyes were under a cover from My reminder and they could not even hear. He said: It is like His words: they could not bear to hear and they did not see (). I asked: And so He censured them? He replied: He did not censure them for what He had done to them. However, He did censure them for what they had done. If they had not been pretentious, they would not have been accountable for anything.”
Author’s comment: that is, They caused this veil so they are responsible for its consequences.
Tafsīr al-Qummī says about the same verse [Those whose eyes were under a cover . . .]: “They would not look at the signs, the heavens and the earth God had created.”
Author’s comment: In ʿUyūn akhbār al-Riḍā, on the authority of al-Riḍā, the verse is applied to those who deny the Imams’ guardianship. However this is an example of demonstrating the Qur’an’s continued relevance and applicability.
Discourse
The discussions “About the Story of Dhū l-Qarnayn”; “A Qur’anic and Historical Study Divided into Sections”; “As for his Building the Barrier” appear here in the printed volume. Read them in the Al-Mizan App.
Yamūju means it—that is, the sea—heaves. (Trans.) ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr narrates on the authority of al-Aḥwaṣ b. Ḥakīm on the authority of his father on the authority of the Prophet and on the authority of al-Shirāzī on the authority of Jubayr b. Nufayr on the authority of the Prophet and on the authority of several narrators on the authority of Khālid b. Maʿdān on the authority of the Prophet and on the authority of several narrators on the authority of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥātim and Abū Shaykh on the authority of al-Bāqir; al-Burhān on the authority of Jibrāʾil b. Aḥmad on the authority of al-Aṣbagh b. Nubāta on the authority of ʿAlī, and, Nūr al-thaqalayn says on the authority of Uṣūl al-kāfī on the authority of al-Ḥārith b. al-Mughīra on the authority of Abū Jaʿfar. ↩︎
Narrated by al-ʿAyyāshī on the authority of Abū Ḥamza al-Thumālī on the authority of Abū Jaʿfar; al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Abū l-Shaykh on the authority of Abū l-Warqāʾ on the authority of ʿAlī; there are other narrations to the same effect. ↩︎
As in Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī on the authority of al-Aṣbagh b. Nubāta on the authority of ʿAlī; al-Burhān on the authority of al-Thumālī on the authority of al-Bāqir ↩︎
As is apparent from a narration in al-Ḥimyarī’s Qurb al-isnād on the authority of al-Kāẓim and al-Durr al-manthūr’s narration on the authority of several narrators on the authority of ʿUqbah ibn ʿ Āmir on the authority of the Prophet and also his narration on the authority of several narrators on the authority of Wahb. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Ḥātim and Abū l-Shaykh via Ibn Isḥāq on the authority of one of the People of the Book who became Muslim. ↩︎
al-Bidāya wa-l-nihāya. ↩︎
al-Bidāya wa-l-nihāya on the authority of al-Tījān by Ibn Hishām. ↩︎
al-Khiṣāl on the authority of Muḥammad b. Khālid without citing the chain of narration; al-Bidāya wa-l-nihāya on the authority of Zubayr b. Bakkār on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās. ↩︎
al-Burhān on the authority of al-Ṣadūq on the authority of al-Aṣbagh on the authority of ʿAlī; Tafsīr al-Qummī on the authority of Abū Baṣīr on the authority of al-Ṣadiq; al-Khiṣāl on the authority of Abū Baṣīr on the authority of al-Ṣādiq. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī on the authority al-Aṣbagh on the authority of ʿAlī; al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Ibn Mardawayh via Abū Ṭufayl on the authority of ʿAlī; also narrated by al-ʿAyyāshī and other oral traditions. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī on the authority of al-Aṣbagh on the authority of ʿAlī; al-Durr al-manthūr says something to the same effect on the authority of several narrators on the authority of Wahb b. Munabbih. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Abū l-Shaykh on the authority of Wahb b. Munabbih. [. . . ]. ↩︎
That is, a musical instrument similar to a clarinet or oboe. (Trans.) ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of several narrators on the authority of Abū al-ʿĀliya and Ibn Shihāb. ↩︎
Nūr al-thaqalayn on the authority of al-Kharāʾij wa-l-Jarāʾiḥ on the authority of al-ʿAskarī on the authority of ʿAlī. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of al-Shīrāzī on the authority of Qatāda. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of several narrators on the authority of Wahb. ↩︎
Ibid. ↩︎
Narrated in Rūḥ al-maʿānī. ↩︎
Said by several of the Sunnī (ʿāmma) and Shi‘ah (khāṣṣa), appearing in al-Durr al-manthūr, al-Burhān, Nūr al-thaqalayn and Biḥār al-anwār. ↩︎
al-Burhān on the authority of Jamīl on the authority of al-Ṣādiq; al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of ʿAbd b. Ḥamīd and others on the authority of ʿIkrima. ↩︎
In Muslim cosmology, Mount Qāf is the name of the mountain range that surrounds the terrestrial world; some classical Muslim scholars have described it as being made of green emerald, which is then reflected in the sky (Encyclopaedia of Islam, ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, and W. P. Heinrichs [Leiden: Brill, 1960–2004], 4:400–402). (Ed.) ↩︎
Tafsīr al-Qummī on the authority of ʿAlī; Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī on the authority of Hishām on the authority of someone from the family of Muḥammad; al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥātim and others on the authority of al-Bāqir. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Ibn Isḥāq and others on the authority of Wahb. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Ibn al-Mundhir on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Ibn Isḥāq and others on the authority of Wahb. ↩︎
A farsakh is approximately 5.5 kilometers. (Trans.) ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn al-Mundhir on the authority of ʿAlī and on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥātim on the authority of Qatāda; Nūr al-thaqalayn citing ʿIlal al-Sharāʾiʿ on the authority of al-ʿAskarī. ↩︎
Nūr al-thaqalayn citing Rawḍāt al-kāfī on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās. ↩︎
al-Ṭabarī on the authority of ʿAbdullāh b. ʿUmayr and ʿAbdullāh b. Salām; al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of al-Nisāʾī; Ibn Mardawayh on the authority of Aws on the authority of the Prophet; ibid. on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥātim on the authority of al-Suddī on the authority of ʿAlī. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of ʿAbd al-Razzāq and others on the authority of ʿAbdullāh b. ʿUmar. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Ibn Isḥāq and others on the authority of Wahb. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Ibn al-Mundhir and Abū l-Shaykh on the authority of Ḥassān b. ʿAṭiyya; also on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥātim and others; on the authority of Ḥudhayfah on the authority of the Prophet; some oral traditions exaggerate their numbers so much that it is narrated on the authority of the Prophet that Gog and Magog are nine times as numerous as the Muslims (al-Bidāya wa-l-nihāya citing the authentic tradition on the authority of Abū Saʿīd on the authority of the Prophet). It is said that the Muslims make up a fifth of the inhabitants of the earth which would make Gog and Magog two hundred times as numerous as all the inhabitants of the earth. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Abī Ḥātim on the authority of Kaʿb al-Aḥbār. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Ḥākim and others on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of several narrators on the authority of ʿUqba b. ʿĀmir on the authority of the Prophet. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī on the authority of al-Aṣbagh on the authority of ʿAlī. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Ibn Mardawayh and others on the authority of ʿUbayd b. ʿUmayr; Nūr al-thaqalayn on the authority of al-Shaykh al-Ṭūsī: al-Amālī on the authority of al-Bāqir; Ibn Isḥāq: al-ʿArāʾis. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Abū Ḥātim and Ibn ʿAsākir on the authority of Mujāhid. ↩︎
al-Burhān on the authority of al-Birqī on the authority of Mūsā b. Jaʿfar. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥātim on the authority of Wahb. ↩︎