Verses 9–26

Chapter 18: Al-Kahf (The Cave) · Printed edition: Volume 26, pp. 10–80

Introduction

These verses narrate the story of the Companions of the Cave. Narrations say that the Jews advised the Quraysh to ask the Prophet about three things in order to test the authenticity of his claim to prophethood: the story of the Companions of the Cave, the story of Moses and his servant, and the story of Dhū l-Qarnayn. The only difference is that this story is not narrated in a way which suggests that it was an answer to a question in the manner the story of Dhū l-Qarnayn is mentioned: And they ask you about Dhū l-Qarnayn, although there is something at the end of it which does give such an impression (). And do not say of anything: Surely I will do it tomorrow, unless God pleases (), the explanation of which will come later.

The context of the first three verses gives the impression that the story of the cave was vaguely familiar before the revelation came down narrating its details. This is especially true of the context evidenced by His words: Or do you think that the Companions of the Cave and the Inscription were wonders among Our signs? ().

What was revealed filled in the gaps in their knowledge of the story, beginning with His words: We relate to you their story with truth ().

This story—along with the denial of it being a wonder among the signs of God—is appended to the preceding verses to show that everything on earth is a test. God made everything on earth an embellishment which human beings would become engrossed in and attracted to, oblivious of everything else. Then, after a short time, God will turn the earth into a barren land. This is a divine sign; equally, it was a divine sign when the Companions of the Cave were overwhelmed with sleep for 300 solar years in the mouth of a cave, and when He revived them, they thought that they had tarried for only a day or part of a day.

This worldly abode, whose vanity and beauty everyone is engrossed in while being oblivious to everything else, is itself a divine sign; it parallels the sign represented by the Companions of the Cave. God will rouse people from their sleep (in their graves) and ask them: . . . How many years did you tarry in (your graves in) the earth? They will say: We tarried a day or part of a day () . . .and . . . On that Day, when they shall see what they are promised, they shall be as if they had not tarried (in their graves) save an hour of the day . . . ().

Thus, the divine sign presented by the story of the Companions of the Cave is not a new or a wondrous one. On the contrary, it is an ongoing phenomenon. It will come to pass as long as the days and nights come to pass over humankind.

In the three verses beginning from, Then maybe you will kill yourself with grief over them (), God seems to be telling His Prophet: “It is as if you have not turned away from their preoccupation with this world and their disbelief. They disbelieve in these words because they are attached to the adornments of this world, and these adornments are a divine sign like the sign of the Companions of the Cave. They were in their cave, and then He revived them. This has sorely grieved you. Nay, you too reckoned that the story of the Companions of the Cave was a wondrous sign, something unique.”

God did not reveal this explicitly, perhaps to safeguard the holy Prophet from being accused of heedlessness or obliviousness. Furthermore, allusion is more eloquent than explicitness.

This conclusion results from reflecting on the reason why the story was appended here. It also explains the contextual relevance of appending the stories which come after this one: the story of the two men, one of whom had two gardens; and the story of Moses and his servant (the explanation of which will follow). Other reasons have been mentioned as to why the story (of the Companions of the Cave) has been appended (to the preceding verses), but they are not worth mentioning.

Commentary

أَمۡ حَسِبۡتَ أَنَّ أَصۡحَٰبَ ٱلۡكَهۡفِ وَٱلرَّقِيمِ كَانُواْ مِنۡ ءَايَٰتِنَا عَجَبًا ٩

(18:9) Or do you think (ḥasibta) that the Companions of the Cave (kahf) and the Inscription (raqīm) were wonders among Our signs?

Ḥusbān means “thinking.” A kahf is a mountain cave, but it is bigger than a ghār (grotto). If it is small, it is called a ghār. Al-Raqīm, which comes from the word raqm, means “writing” or “inscription.” It is an object (in the faʿīl form), similar to jarīh (wounded) and qatīl (killed). ʿAjab is a verbal noun meaning taʿajjub (amazement). It is used to express an exaggerated adjectival meaning.

The apparent context of the story reveals that the Companions of the Cave and the Inscription were a group of people who were prominent in their nations, and the story is about all of them. They are the ones who are called aṣḥāb al-kahf (Companions of the Cave) and aṣḥāb al-raqīm (Companions of the Inscription). They are called Companions of the Cave (aṣḥāb al-kahf) because they went into the cave (kahf), and because of what happened to them in it.

They are called the Companions of the Inscription (aṣḥāb al-raqīm) because their story was inscribed on a plaque hung up or kept in the king’s archive. Alternatively, it is said that al-Raqīm was the name of the mountain (where the cave was) or that it was the name of the valley where the mountain was. It is also said that it was the name of the place that they fled to before they took refuge in the cave, or that it is the name of the dog which accompanied them. This makes a total of five possible interpretations. The first interpretation is favored in the forthcoming discussion on the story.

A further alternative interpretation is that the Companions of the Inscription were different people from the Companions of the Cave and they had a different story; God mentioned them along with the Companions of the Cave but did not relate their story. While a story has been narrated about them, and we will discuss it in the upcoming section on narrations, it is extremely unlikely that God, with His eloquence, would mention both groups, only to go into detail about one of them and fail to address the other, either briefly or in detail. Furthermore, the story that is narrated about the People of the Inscription does not fit the preceding context which made it appropriate to mention the story of the Companions of the Cave.

When connected with the other verses, it is clear that this verse means: “Nay, you thought that the Companions of the Cave and the Inscription—whom God caused to sleep for hundreds of years and then awakened, while they thought they had tarried for a day or part of a day—were among Our wondrous signs? This was not at all amazing. The general human condition—their fascination with worldly adornments, their obliviousness to the hereafter, and their own resurrection, when they will realize that they did not tarry long in this world—this is a perpetual sign of God similar to that of the Companions of the Cave.”

As mentioned above, the context shows that this story was known to the Prophet before it was revealed; the revelation provided the details. This verse supports this inference, especially because it is followed by three verses summarizing the story and referring to its salient points which would lead a person to think that it was an amazing and rare sign.

إِذۡ أَوَى ٱلۡفِتۡيَةُ إِلَى ٱلۡكَهۡفِ فَقَالُواْ رَبَّنَآ ءَاتِنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ رَحۡمَةٗ وَهَيِّئۡ لَنَا مِنۡ أَمۡرِنَا رَشَدٗا ١٠

(18:10) When the youths sought refuge in the cave, they said: Our Lord! Grant us mercy from You, and provide for us a right course in our affair.

Awī means “returning”—not every kind of returning; rather, it refers to a person or an animal returning to a place where he/she/it settles or feels secure. Fitya is an oral plural (jamʿ samāʿī) of fatā (a youth), and the word is not without a certain laudatory flavor of praise.

Tahīʾa means “preparation.” Al-Bayḍāwī says: “The root meaning of tahīʾa is bringing about the form of a thing.”

Rashad or rushd means being guided to something which is sought. Al-Rāghib says: “Rushd (rectitude) is the opposite of ghayy (misguidance), and it is used in the same way as the word hidaya (guidance).”

The sentence [their prayer], they said: Our Lord! Grant us mercy from You, begins with the conjunction fāʾ to indicate the sequence of events (tafrīʿ)—namely, that they performed their prayer after they sought refuge—as if their power were stripped from them, and they could not do anything about their situation. This interpretation is more likely because they said “from You.” Had they not run out of options and means, and had despair not surrounded them, they would not have emphasized that the mercy they sought would come from Him alone; otherwise, they would have (simply) said, “Lord! Grant us mercy” (ātinā raḥma), as did others: . . . Our Lord! Grant us goodness in this world . . . (); . . . Our Lord! And grant us what You have promised us by Your messengers. . . ().

Since “mercy” (raḥma) is qualified with (the specification) “from You,” what is meant by it is divine support because there is no supporter other than Him.

Alternatively, the mercy—which is qualified as being sought from Him alone—could be gifts or blessings which can only come from the Almighty, such as the guidance which is explicitly said to be from Him in various places in the Qur’an. The specification “from You” suggests this is the case, and this interpretation is strengthened by the prayer of those firmly rooted in knowledge, which says something similar: Our Lord! Cause not our hearts to deviate after You have guided us aright, and grant us mercy from You . . . ().

After all, they did not ask for anything else other than guidance.

And provide for us a right course in our affair: “Our affair” refers to their specific circumstances; that is, they fled from a people who chased after the believers, spilling their blood and forcing them to worship deities other than God. They sought refuge in the cave not knowing what would happen to them and not knowing which path to take to save themselves. Thus, it becomes clear that rushd means choosing the right path to save themselves.

Based on the first interpretation of “mercy” (mentioned above), the entire phrase, and provide for us a right course in our affair, acts as a conjunction to [the clause], grant us mercy from You. Based on the second interpretation, it is a second plea following the first plea.

فَضَرَبۡنَا عَلَىٰٓ ءَاذَانِهِمۡ فِي ٱلۡكَهۡفِ سِنِينَ عَدَدٗا ١١

(18:11) Then We veiled (ḍarabnā) their hearing for numbered years in the cave.

Al-Kashshāf says:

“It means, We put a veil over them preventing them from hearing and caused them to sleep so heavily that they could not be awoken by voices, as you see with a heavy sleeper who hears nothing when he is shouted at and cannot be woken up. The implied object—the veil (al-ḥijāb) is omitted, as when one says banā ʿalā imraʾatihi (he built over his wife), meaning that he built a dome-shaped edifice over (the grave of) his wife (banā ʿalā imraʾatihi al-qubba).”

Majmaʿ al-bayān says:

“It means, ‘We overcame them with sleep’—which is an extremely eloquent form of expression. One says ḍarabahu Allāh bi-l-fālij (God struck him with paralysis) when God afflicts someone with paralysis. Quṭrub said: ‘It is like what the Arabs say: ḍaraba al-amīr ʿalā yad fulān (the commander smote so-and-so’s hand) when he stops him from acting.’ Al-Aswad b. Yaʿfur, who was blind, said: ‘And of events, do not think that the earth has set obstacles for me (ḍarabat ʿalayya al-arḍ bi-l-asdādi).’ He further said: ‘This is one of the Qur’an’s eloquent linguistic usages which cannot be translated with a meaning that corresponds exactly to the wording.’”

The meaning he stated is more eloquent than that of al-Zamakhsharī.

There is a third possible meaning, even though they did not mention it, namely, one that alludes to what women do to make their children sleep; that is, gently tapping their ears with their hands or fingertips so that their senses focus on it and they fall asleep. Likewise, the phrase (that is, We veiled their hearing) implies how He tenderly and lovingly eased them to sleep for many years like a nursing mother would do with her suckling infant.

Sinīn ʿadadan—is an adverbial phrase describing ḍarabnā (lit. “We smote”). ʿAdad is a verbal noun like ʿiddun (counting), so all together this means “numbered years.” Alternatively, it is said that the word annexed (the muḍāf) has been omitted and, with it, it would read dhawāt ʿadad (lit. “having numbers”).

Al-Kashshāf says:

“Describing the years as ʿadadan could mean either that there were many years or few years because, before Him, many are few, as in His words: . . . they had not stayed but an hour (illā sāʿatan) of the day . . . (). Al-Zajjāj said that if there is a small quantity of something, its amount is clearly understood and there is no need for it to be measured, but if there is a large quantity of something, it has to be measured (or numbered).”

The description ʿadadan could mean that when something becomes numerous, it is difficult to count, so it is not normally counted. Thus, describing the years as ʿadadan could imply they were few and easily counted. He said: Then they sold him for a paltry price, a handful of counted dirhams (darāhima maʿdūda) . . . (), meaning “a few dirhams.”

The years are described as ʿadadan to show that they were few in number, a meaning which is appropriate to the context discussed above. The words are coined with the aim to refute the idea that their story is the most amazing. It is therefore appropriate to consider the number of years (they remained in the cave) to be few and not many.

The meaning of the verse is clear; that is, it indicates that throughout their time in the cave, they were asleep and not dead.

ثُمَّ بَعَثۡنَٰهُمۡ لِنَعۡلَمَ أَيُّ ٱلۡحِزۡبَيۡنِ أَحۡصَىٰ لِمَا لَبِثُوٓاْ أَمَدٗا ١٢

(18:12) Then We rouse them up (baʿathnāhum) so that We might know (li-naʿlam) which of the two parties would reckon the time (amadan) for which they had remained.

Baʿth here means “waking up” and not “resurrecting” as can be understood from the context of the previous verse.

Al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī says that ḥizb means “a group with some fierceness.” He (also) says:

“Al-amad (duration) and al-abad (eternity) are almost identical in meaning. However, al-abad is used for a time span which has no limit and is unrestricted. One cannot use abad for the duration of something. Al-amad implies an unknown but limited duration if it is not qualified. It can be qualified; for instance, discussing something’s amad is the same as discussing its zamān (time). The difference between amad and zaman is that amad refers to an end, whereas zamān can refer either to a beginning or an end. That is why some say that madā and amad mean roughly the same thing.”

The knowledge meant (in the clause, so that We might know) is actual knowledge; that is, something that becomes apparent and present precisely as it is in God’s sight. Knowledge in this sense appears frequently in the Qur’an, such as: . . . so that God may know (li-yaʿlama) who helps Him and His messengers in the unseen . . . () and So that He may know (li-yaʿlama) that they have truly delivered the messages of their Lord . . . ().

This is what some (of the exegetes) imply when they say, by way of exegesis, that the clause means “to manifest what We already know.”

So that We might know (li-naʿlama) which of the two parties (al-ḥizbayn) would reckon (aḥṣā) the time (amadan) for which they remained (li-mā labithū), is the reason for their awakening. Li indicates purpose. Al-ḥizbayn means “two groups of the Companions of the Cave” because after being awoken, God says: A speaker among them said: How long have you tarried? They said: We have tarried for a day or part of a day. (Others) said: Your Lord knows best how long you have tarried. This (explanation) is according to what He states in the following sentence, Thus did We rouse them up (from sleep) so that they might question each other.

Someone else has said that al-ḥizbayn refers to two groups from their people—namely, the believers and the unbelievers, as if they disagreed over how long they had tarried. Some of them reckoned correctly, and some of them did not; therefore, God awoke them to make it clear and apparent. Accordingly, this interpretation would mean: “We awoke them to show which of the two disputing groups—the believers and the unbelievers—is right in what they say.” However, this is an unlikely explanation.

Aḥṣā (would reckon) is a verb in the past tense from the verbal noun al-iḥṣāʾ (reckoning) and amadan (the time) is the object of the verb. It is likely li-mā labithū (for which they remained) qualifies amadan. Mā is a relative pronoun in an either/or sense, indicating which of the two groups reckoned how long they had tarried.

Alternatively, it is said that aḥṣā is a comparative adjective derived from the verbal noun iḥṣāʾ (reckoning) and formed by eliminating its additional letters (bi ḥadhf al-zawāʾid)—like when they say, “he is better (aḥṣā) at counting money” or “he is more bankrupt (aflas) than Ibn al-Mudhalliq” and that amadan is the object of a verb alluded to by aḥṣā. However, this involves some affectation. There are other opinions on this matter.

Three verses [relate to this matter]:

() When the youths sought refuge in the cave, they said: Our Lord! Grant us mercy from You, and provide for us a right course in our affair. Then We veiled their hearing many years in the Cave. Then We roused them up so that We might know which of the two parties would reckon the time for which they had remained.

When the youths returned to the cave, they asked their Lord: “Lord, grant us from You something which will keep up safe from what we are threatened with—choosing between worshiping other deities or being killed—and grant us guidance in our affair so that we can be guided by it to salvation.” So God made them fall asleep in the cave for a limited number of years then awakened them to show which of the two groups would reckon how long they had tarried.

As you can see, these three verses summarize their story, alluding thereby to the aspect of their affair being one of the signs of God and one of awe. The first verse alludes to their entering the cave and asking to be rescued, the second to their sleeping there for a limited number of years, and the third to their waking up, becoming aware, and disagreeing among themselves over how long they had tarried.

There are three central points to their story, each of which is incorporated in these three verses. The subsequent verses, which tell their story in detail, follow in the same vein. The only difference is that they add some of what happened, such as that their secret had been revealed—people had found out about them. This is alluded to by the sentence, And thus did We make (people) learn of them, and the verses continuing to the end of the narration of their story.

The salient points of their story are related in detail, beginning with the verse, We relate to you their story with truth, (and continuing to the end of that section).

نَّحۡنُ نَقُصُّ عَلَيۡكَ نَبَأَهُم بِٱلۡحَقِّۚ إِنَّهُمۡ فِتۡيَةٌ ءَامَنُواْ بِرَبِّهِمۡ وَزِدۡنَٰهُمۡ هُدٗى١٣

(18:13) We relate to you their story with truth; surely they were youths who believed in their Lord and We increased them in guidance (hudā).

This is the beginning of the detailed description of the issues related to their story.

The clause, surely they were youths who believed in their Lord, means they had belief which was pleasing to their Lord. Otherwise, belief would not have been attributed to them.

Guidance (hudā) comes after basic faith and comes with an increase in the level of belief through which a person is guided to everything which results in God’s pleasure. God has said: O you who believe! Be careful of (your duty to) God and believe in His Messenger: He will give you double portions of His mercy and will make for you a light with which you will walk ().

وَرَبَطۡنَا عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمۡ إِذۡ قَامُواْ فَقَالُواْ رَبُّنَا رَبُّ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضِ لَن نَّدۡعُوَاْ مِن دُونِهِۦٓ إِلَٰهٗاۖ لَّقَدۡ قُلۡنَآ إِذٗا شَطَطًا ١٤ هَٰٓؤُلَآءِ قَوۡمُنَا ٱتَّخَذُواْ مِن دُونِهِۦٓ ءَالِهَةٗۖ لَّوۡلَا يَأۡتُونَ عَلَيۡهِم بِسُلۡطَٰنِۢ بَيِّنٖۖ فَمَنۡ أَظۡلَمُ مِمَّنِ ٱفۡتَرَىٰ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ كَذِبٗا ١٥ وَإِذِ ٱعۡتَزَلۡتُمُوهُمۡ وَمَا يَعۡبُدُونَ إِلَّا ٱللَّهَ فَأۡوُۥٓاْ إِلَى ٱلۡكَهۡفِ يَنشُرۡ لَكُمۡ رَبُّكُم مِّن رَّحۡمَتِهِۦ وَيُهَيِّئۡ لَكُم مِّنۡ أَمۡرِكُم مِّرۡفَقٗا ١٦

(18:14–16) And We strengthened their hearts (wa rabaṭnā ʿalā qulūbihim) with patience, when they stood up and said: Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth; we will by no means call upon any god besides Him, indeed we should have said an extravagant thing (shaṭaṭan)! These, our people, have taken gods besides Him; why do they not produce any clear authority (sulṭān) in their support? Who is then more unjust than one who forges a lie against God? And when you forsake them (iʿtazaltumūhum) and what they worship save God, betake yourselves for refuge to the cave; your Lord will shower (yanshur) His mercy on you and bring your affair toward comfort and ease (mirfaqa).

Rabṭ means “tying” and rabṭ ʿalā l-qulūb (“binding upon the hearts”) is an allusion to removing worry and anxiety from them. Shaṭaṭ means “exceeding the limit” and “departing from the truth.” Sulṭān means “evidence” or “proof.”

These three verses relate to the first part of their dialogue, when they got up to defy and dispute with the idolaters: They stood up and said: Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth . . . Who is then more unjust than one who forges a lie against God?

Their speech was full of wisdom and understanding. They aimed to refute the divinity of the angels, jinn, and human reformers who were being worshiped. The idolatrous philosophy sought to prove the divinity and lordship of these things, not of the idols themselves, which were just statues and images of the things which the masses called lords and gods. This is proven by the use of the word ʿalayhim because the pronoun, hum (them)—which is exclusively used for rational beings—refers to them.

They began by affirming God’s Oneness by saying, Our Lord is the Lord (rabb) of the heavens and the earth. They attributed the Lordship (rubūbiyya) of everything to the One who has no partners, whereas idolatry attributes a god and a lord to each kind of creation—a sky god, an earth god, and a human god.

Then they emphasized that by saying, We will by no means call upon any god besides Him. This was to deny meta-gods: the gods which the idolaters place above the simple gods, such as the universal intellects worshiped by the Sabians; or Brahman, Shiva and Vishnu, who are worshiped by the Brahmans and Buddhists. They emphasized it again by saying, for then indeed we should have said an extravagant thing, indicating that calling on anyone else would be a transgression; it would exaggerate the right of a created being by elevating him to the level of the Creator.

They then turned their attention to their people and criticized them for worshiping things other than God—that is, through taking them as gods, by saying, These, our people, have taken gods besides Him; why do they not produce any clear authority in their support? Thus, they refuted what the idolaters claimed by showing that they had no proof supported by clear evidence for their claim.

What they refuted was the evidence that their people relied upon. Their people said that God was too sublime to be grasped by His creation, so it would not be possible to turn to Him in worship, nor could He be approached through servitude. They said that this left them no recourse but to worship some noble beings who were among those who were near Him so that, through them, they could come closer to Him. This [argument], however, was against them, for no one can ever fully comprehend Him—neither a human being nor one of His close servants whom they were worshiping. All of us, including them, only know Him by His names, attributes, and actions, each according to his ability, so everyone may turn to Him to worship Him at the level of their knowledge.

Nevertheless, all the attributes that make Him worthy of being worshiped—such as creating, sustaining, ruling, and managing—are His alone. None of them belong to anyone else, so He, and no one else, should be worshiped.

They complemented what they said—that is, Why do they not produce any clear authority in their support?, with the statement, Who, then, is more unjust than the one who forges a lie against God? This closes the case against what they claimed. It means that they (the people) have to establish incontrovertible proof of what they say. If they cannot, then they are speaking about God without knowledge; in other words, falsely attributing things to Him. It is injustice to falsely attribute things to anyone, let alone to God, and injustice against God is the greatest of all.

Furthermore, through what they said, the youth proved that they acknowledged God and had insight into their religion, thus demonstrating the truth of God’s words, And We increased them in guidance.

In spite of the brevity of these verses, they include expressions that reveal some details about the beginning of their movement. Thus, God’s words, And We strengthened their hearts, show that what they said, Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, was not whispered in the absence of the idol worshipers; rather, it was declared openly and loudly in a place where hearts melt away, souls are terrified, and skin crawls in the face of obstinate, bloodthirsty, sadistic, trying rulers.

Their statement, We will by no means call upon any god besides Him, which comes after, Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, is a disavowal and rejection, and it indicates that they were being forced to worship idols and to call on other things than God.

The clause, when they stood up and said, indicates that they declared their opposition while they were in a council—such as a king’s council or a general assembly—which had passed a decree to force people to worship idols and to forbid them from worshiping God, and had decided to implement this decree through killing and torture. Thus, they stood and announced their opposition. Then, threatened with grave danger, they left, forsaking their people. They were attacked from every angle, as indicated by the sentence, and when you forsake them and what they worship save God, betake yourselves for refuge to the cave.

This supports what the narrations say (which will be discussed subsequently), that six of them were some of the king’s closest confidants whose counsel he sought in his affairs, but then they rose from the council, declared belief in the oneness of God, and denied that He has any partners.

It also does not contradict the (upcoming) narrations that they kept their belief secret and practiced dissimulation (taqiyya). They could have done so before taking people by surprise by declaring their faith, then forsaking them without notice. They could not go about showing their faith publicly; doubtlessly, they would have been killed.

It may also be possible that qāmū (“they stood up” or “they rose”) means that they rose up for God by way of their support of the truth; that is, their words, Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, are something they uttered to themselves, and the words, and when you forsake them, are something they said after they left the city. Alternatively, what is meant is that they rose up for God, and everything they are quoted as saying is what they said among themselves after they left the city and steered clear of the people. Either way, what is meant by their hearts being strengthened is that they were not afraid of being punished for fleeing from the city, nor were they afraid of being banished by the people. However, the first explanation (mentioned above) appears to be more likely.

And when you forsake them (iʿtazaltumūhum) and what they worship save God, betake yourselves for refuge to the cave; your Lord will shower (yanshur) His mercy on you and bring your affair toward comfort and ease (mirfaqa): Iʿtizāl and taʿazzul both mean “separating from something.” Nashr means “unfolding.” Mirfaq (the word used in the verse), marfiq and marfaq all mean “treating someone nicely.”

The above is the second part of the dialogue which took place after they had left their people—after they had forsaken them and what they were worshiping other than God. They had separated themselves from everyone else, and some of them were suggesting that they should enter the cave and hide from the enemies of their religion.

Through divine guidance, they recognized that if they did this, God would treat them with His grace and mercy, which would include rescuing them from being dominated and oppressed by their people. The evidence in support of this is the resolution of their words, Take refuge in the cave, and your Lord will unfold to you His mercy, as opposed to saying, “That perchance He may unfold to you His mercy” or, “Perhaps He may unfold to you His Mercy.”

These two things which they recognized—mercy being extended and being provided with a profitable course are the two things they asked for after entering the cave when they said, as God relates, Our Lord! Grant us mercy from You, and provide for us a right course in our affair.

The exceptive in the clause, and what they worship save God, is a discontinuous (munqaṭiʿ) exceptive because the idolaters did not worship God along with all their other gods, in which case the exceptive would exclude some of those originally included within the generality, that is, be continuous (muttaṣil). Some (exegetes) claim that the polytheists worshiped God and worshiped idols like other polytheists do. Other exegetes claim that perhaps that some of the polytheists worshiped God as well as worshiping idols. In either case, the exceptive would be continuous. However, both the claims are inappropriate. This is because the idolaters were never known to worship God along with the idols. Their philosophy would not allow it, and we alluded to their pretext for that above.

۞وَتَرَى ٱلشَّمۡسَ إِذَا طَلَعَت تَّزَٰوَرُ عَن كَهۡفِهِمۡ ذَاتَ ٱلۡيَمِينِ وَإِذَا غَرَبَت تَّقۡرِضُهُمۡ ذَاتَ ٱلشِّمَالِ وَهُمۡ فِي فَجۡوَةٖ مِّنۡهُۚ ذَٰلِكَ مِنۡ ءَايَٰتِ ٱللَّهِۗ مَن يَهۡدِ ٱللَّهُ فَهُوَ ٱلۡمُهۡتَدِۖ وَمَن يُضۡلِلۡ فَلَن تَجِدَ لَهُۥ وَلِيّٗا مُّرۡشِدٗا ١٧ وَتَحۡسَبُهُمۡ أَيۡقَاظٗا وَهُمۡ رُقُودٞۚ وَنُقَلِّبُهُمۡ ذَاتَ ٱلۡيَمِينِ وَذَاتَ ٱلشِّمَالِۖ وَكَلۡبُهُم بَٰسِطٞ ذِرَاعَيۡهِ بِٱلۡوَصِيدِۚ لَوِ ٱطَّلَعۡتَ عَلَيۡهِمۡ لَوَلَّيۡتَ مِنۡهُمۡ فِرَارٗا وَلَمُلِئۡتَ مِنۡهُمۡ رُعۡبٗا ١٨

(18:17–18) And you might see how, when the sun rose, it would decline (tazāwaru) from their cave toward the right hand (dhāt al-yamīn), and when it set, it would leave them behind (taqriḍuhum) on the left (dhāt al-shimāl), as they were in a wide space thereof. This is (one) of the signs of God; whomever God guides, he is the rightly guided one, and whomever He causes to err, you shall not find for him any friend to lead (him) to the right course. You would have deemed them awake, while they were asleep, and We turned them about to the right and to the left, their dog stretching forth his two forelegs on the threshold: If you had come upon them, you certainly would have run from them and have been filled with terror.

Tazāwur means “inclining.” It is derived from zawar which means “slanting.” Qarḍ means “cutting,” and a fajwa is a wide tract of land or the courtyard of a house. Dhāt al-yamīn and dhāt al-shimāl mean the side beyond the right and left, or the side which bears the name of the right or left; that is, the right and left hand sides.

These two verses vividly describe the cave, their settling in it, their appearance and the changing conditions around them during the days they tarried there, asleep. The Prophet is addressed in the second person but not in his own personal capacity; rather, it is in his capacity as a listener. This is common in speech. Second person usage of this sort applies to any listener without being restricted to any particular addressee.

The words, And you might see how, when the sun rose, it would decline from their cave toward the right hand, and when it set, it would leave them behind on the left, as they were in a wide space thereof, describe the cave’s position and their position in it while they were asleep. It is enough to mention what was alluded to in the preceding verses regarding their sleep and tarrying; the explanation of the verse, and they remained in their cave. . ., will follow.

The verse means that if—hypothetically—you and everyone else were to look at them in the cave, you would see the sun rise with its rays shining to the right, away from the cave; and you would see it set with its rays disappearing to the left; and you would see them in a wide space inside the cave, untouched by the sun.

With this, God indicates that the cave was neither facing east nor west; otherwise, the sun’s rays would shine on them at only one of these two times. Instead, it was on the north–south axis, with its entrance facing either the north or south. The sun’s rays shone onto the sides of the cave at sunrise and sunset, but the sun did not shine on them because they were inside the cave. Thus, God protected them from being harmed by the heat of the sun—from their skin being burnt or their clothes becoming faded. Indeed, they were comfortable when they were asleep; they enjoyed a breeze at sunrise and sunset while they were in a wide tract (fajwa) of the cave. Since fajwa is indefinite, it may imply that a descriptive clause has been omitted; that is, “while they were in a wide tract (fajwa) of the cave without the sun’s rays shining on them.”

Exegetes say that the cave’s opening was toward the North facing the stars on the handle of the Big Dipper (banāt naʿsh). They say that its right side faced west, with the sun’s rays shining on it at sunrise; and its left side faced east, with the sun’s rays shining on it at sunset. This is based on the assumption that the right and left hand sides of the cave are described from the perspective of someone entering the cave. Perhaps this is because they are relying on the commonly held view that the cave is in Ephesus, one of the eastern Byzantine cities, because the opening of the cave there faces toward the North, inclining a little to the east, as is said.

However, for a cave, house, encampment, or anything else that has an entrance, right and left are usually determined by the perspective of someone exiting and not entering, because when people first felt the need to think about directions, they thought about directions in relation to themselves. So people called what was beyond their heads “high” or “above”; what was beyond their feet “low” or “below”; what was before their face, the “front”; and, the opposite of that, the “back.” They called the side that their dominant hand was on “right,” and the other side “left.” Then, when the need arose to think about a thing’s sides, they put themselves in the thing’s place. Whichever of its sides corresponded with a face—the side with which the object faces other objects—became the “front”; the one behind it became its back, the one corresponding to a person’s right became its “right,” and the one corresponding to a person’s left became its “left.”

Because the front of a house, homestead, encampment or anything else which has an entrance is the side the entrance is on, right and left are determined from the point of view of someone exiting, not entering, the door. Thus, the cave is described by the verse as facing south, with its opening facing the South; and it is not as they (the exegetes) claim. There is more to say on this, and it will follow, God willing.

In any event, they remained under the care of and in the grace of God, who kept them alive until their decreed lifespan reached its end. There is an allusion to this later.

This is (one) of the signs of God; whomever God guides, he is the rightly guided one, and whomever He causes to err, you shall not find for him any friend to lead (him) to the right course. And you would have deemed them awake (ayqāẓan) while they were asleep (ruqūd): Ayqāẓ is the plural of yaqīẓ or yaqẓān meaning “awake,” while ruqūd is the plural of rāqid meaning “asleep.” This suggests that while they were asleep, their eyes were open, as if they were awake.

The words, And We turned them about to the right and to the left, means: “We turned them over, sometimes from the right side to the left side, and sometimes from the left side to the right side, in order to stop the earth from consuming them, their clothes from decaying, or their bodily strength from waning as they lingered there, unmoving.”

While their dog (lay) outstretching his two forelegs at the threshold (waṣīd): A waṣīd is said to be the courtyard or doorstep of a house. It means that they were as described, while their dog was lying down stretching its paws out in the open space inside the cave. It informs us that they had a dog which kept close to them and tarried with them throughout their sojourn in the cave.

The words, If you had come upon them, you certainly would have run from them and have been filled with terror, explains that they had a terrifying appearance. If someone chanced upon them, he or she would flee in horror and in anticipation of something abhorrent from them; fear and dread would fill that person’s heart with terror, which would spread to every limb, which would then, too, be filled with terror.

What can be said about the use of the second person in (the clauses), you would certainly turn back, and, you would certainly be filled, is similar to what was said about it in relation to the clause, and you might see the sun. . .

What was said above explains two things:

1. The reason for saying, and you would certainly be filled with terror, instead of saying “and your heart would certainly be filled with terror” and
2. The reason for arranging the two phrases in the order: if you looked at them you would certainly turn back from them in flight, followed by, you would certainly be filled with terror because of them.

People flee from something abhorrent because they anticipate danger (from it), not because they have fear or agitation in the heart. Fleeing or distancing oneself from unpleasantness to avoid it is the effect of anticipating danger (from it) and not the effect of terror, which is fear and agitation in the heart. Impending danger necessitates flight, with or without terror.

Thus putting “fleeing” before “terror” is not putting the cause before the effect; rather, it is putting the measure which must be taken in a fearful situation (ḥukm al-khawf) before terror—fear and terror being two different states of the heart. If there were terror instead of fear, it would be correct to put the second phrase first and the first second. However, based on what we have said, mentioning the fearful situation before the actual terror—even though they are both effects of looking at their dreadful, unsettling appearance—is better and more eloquent. This is because fleeing is more indicative of that [the fearful situation] than being filled with terror.

وَكَذَٰلِكَ بَعَثۡنَٰهُمۡ لِيَتَسَآءَلُواْ بَيۡنَهُمۡۚ قَالَ قَآئِلٞ مِّنۡهُمۡ كَمۡ لَبِثۡتُمۡۖ قَالُواْ لَبِثۡنَا يَوۡمًا أَوۡ بَعۡضَ يَوۡمٖۚ قَالُواْ رَبُّكُمۡ أَعۡلَمُ بِمَا لَبِثۡتُمۡ فَٱبۡعَثُوٓاْ أَحَدَكُم بِوَرِقِكُمۡ هَٰذِهِۦٓ إِلَى ٱلۡمَدِينَةِ فَلۡيَنظُرۡ أَيُّهَآ أَزۡكَىٰ طَعَامٗا فَلۡيَأۡتِكُم بِرِزۡقٖ مِّنۡهُ وَلۡيَتَلَطَّفۡ وَلَا يُشۡعِرَنَّ بِكُمۡ أَحَدًا ١٩ إِنَّهُمۡ إِن يَظۡهَرُواْ عَلَيۡكُمۡ يَرۡجُمُوكُمۡ أَوۡ يُعِيدُوكُمۡ فِي مِلَّتِهِمۡ وَلَن تُفۡلِحُوٓاْ إِذًا أَبَدٗا ٢٠

(18:19–20) Thus did We rouse them up (from sleep) so that they might question each other (li-yatasāʾalū). A speaker among them said: How long have you tarried? They said: We have tarried for a day or part of a day. (Others) said: Your Lord knows best how long you have tarried. Now send one of you with this silver (coin) of yours to the city, then let him see which of them has the best food, so let him bring you provision from it, and let him behave with gentleness, and by no means should you make your case known to anyone. For surely if they prevail against you (yaẓharū ʿalaykum), they will stone you to death, or force you back into their religion, and then you will never succeed.

Tasāʾul means “asking each other.” Wariq (spelled with a fatḥa followed by a kasra) means “dirhams.” It is said that it means either minted or unminted silver coins. In yaẓharū ʿalaykum means either “if they find out about you” or “if they prevail against you.” And thus did We rouse them up, implies they had been asleep (in the way portrayed in the preceding verses), and this verse () means: “Just as We caused them to sleep for a long time in this perplexing and amazing state, which was one of Our signs, so too did We awaken them so they would question each other.”

Given their prayer when they entered the cave, and the sleep that followed soon afterwards, this simile shows that they were awakened so they would question each other and the truth of the matter would become apparent to them. They were only caused to sleep and remained asleep for a long time so they would be awakened. As an act of mercy and to offer right guidance, God made them sleep after their prayer and petition. For they were bothered by the unbelief that had taken hold of their society: the prevalence of falsehood and the violence and tyranny that surrounded them. They were assailed by despondency and had despaired of the truth ever prevailing or religious people ever having freedom of religion. Hence, they reckoned that falsehood would long prevail on earth as did he [ʿUzayr]: () . . . who passed by a town, and it had fallen down upon its roofs; he said: When will God give it life after its death? So God caused him to die for a hundred years then raised him to life . . . ().

In short, when these suppositions overwhelmed them, and despair overtook them, God made them sleep for a number of years before He awakened them so that they would ask each other (how long they had been asleep) and after that, reply, a day or part of a day. Then, it would become apparent to them that hundreds of years had passed, and that many things had changed.

From a different perspective, these hundreds of years were meant to seem just like a day or part of a day so that they would realize that it did not matter whether the time was long or short; this had nothing to do with truth being destroyed or falsehood sustained. Instead, it was God who made everything on the earth an embellishment for it, drew mankind to the earth, and made eons and days pass, in order to try them (as to) which of them is best in deeds. The world’s only function is to tempt those who pursue it with its embellishment, to tempt those who cling to the earth and follow their desires.

This is a reality which continues to elude man so long as he remains attached to his days which have passed and to what has happened to him—sweet, bitter, or serious—like a person who turns in his sleep or slumbers for the like of a day. Only the intoxication of desire and occupation with the world’s vanity prevent him from turning to the truth and following it. However, God has a day for humankind in which no embellishment or adornment of the world will distract them from witnessing this truth—the day of their death. As ʿAlī said: “People are asleep. When they die, they wake up.” That day is the day the world’s expanse and embellishment will be folded up, and the world of humankind will be done away with, completely extinguished. It is clear from the above that the clause, so that they might question each other, explains why they were awakened. Li (so) in li-yatasāʾalū indicates reason or purpose. It is also consistent with the previously stated purpose, then We roused them up so that We might know which of the two parties would reckon the time for which they remained.

Some have said that just part of the purpose was stated because it obviously implies all the other consequences of the awakening—it is as if what is being said is: “So that they would ask each other, and so that what happened to them would be exposed: the sign would be revealed, and divine power would become apparent.” However, there is no evidence for this view in the wording of the Book, and it sounds contrived.

Others say that li in li-yatasāʾalū (so that they might question each other) indicates the consequence (of being awoken), not the purpose. They believe it is unlikely that their asking each other questions—an insignificant thing—was the purpose of their being awakened, which was a great sign. The problem with this interpretation is that it does not suffice to disprove the view that they were awakened in order to ask each other. This is because, just as something which is quite insignificant should not be made the purpose of something significant, or of a tremendous sign, it is equally inappropriate to say that something frivolous is the consequence of something which is a great sign. Nevertheless, you already know from our explanation the real purpose of their being awakened; that is, so that they might ask each other how long they tarried.

The words, A speaker among them said: For how long have you tarried?, proves that the person asking the question was one of them speaking to the rest, asking how long they had remained asleep in the cave. It is as if the questioner felt that they had tarried for a long time on account of the languor of heavy sleep they felt after waking up; that is why he asked, How long have you tarried?

They said: We have tarried for a day or part of a day, (shows) they wavered between a day and part of a day in their answer, as if they were basing their answer on what they saw—the change in the area where the sun shone—as if they had started sleeping at the beginning of the day and woke up in the middle, or at the end of it; then they were not sure whether a night had passed, meaning that they had stayed a day, or not a day but part of a day. They wavered between “a day” and “part of a day” in their reply, but, in any event, it is the same answer.

Some say that based on the above the hesitation must be between “part of a day” and “a day and part of a day,” not between “a day” and “part of a day.” Therefore, the function of aw (or) is to divide them into two groups, meaning some of them (the youths) said, “We tarried for a day”; and others said, “We tarried for part of a day.”

This interpretation should be disregarded, first, because it does not derive from the context of the wording, We have tarried for a day or part of a day. A single person had given the exact same reply elsewhere (in the Qur'an): . . . He said: How long have you tarried? He said: I have tarried a day, or a part of a day . . . ().

Second, what they said, We have tarried for a day or part of a day, is based on what was apparent to them; and this they relied on as evidence because they were above speaking randomly, rashly, or while hallucinating. Some of the physical things which a person—especially one who has slept and then wakes up—relies on as evidence, such as the sun, shade, light, or darkness, do not measure whole days without a margin of error either way. This applies both to interpreting what was said as wavering and interpreting it as a split in opinion. In any event, what is meant by “a day” is slightly more than a night followed by its day, and it is common usage.

The words, (Others) said: Your Lord knows best how long you have tarried, means that others among them said this in reply to those who said, We have tarried for a day or part of a day. If it were not in reply to that, they would have said: “Our Lord knows best how long we have tarried”.

Thus, it is clear that when they attributed knowledge to God by saying, Your Lord knows best, this was not just a demonstration of good manners, as some people claim; rather, this was said to demonstrate one of the truths of tawḥīd (pure monotheism): that knowledge, in the true sense of the word, is God’s alone, for a person is veiled from everything beyond his own soul. He owns nothing beyond his own self (and owns that only by the permission of God). He can only comprehend things through his own self. He can only attain knowledge of anything beyond his self through external evidence, and only to the degree that it shows anything to him. True knowledge—namely, comprehending the essence of things and events themselves—is God’s alone. He encompasses and witnesses everything. Innumerable verses indicate this reality.

Thus, a monotheist who acknowledges the position (maqām) of the Lord has no choice but to surrender to Him and attribute all knowledge to Him without attributing any perfection—like knowledge or power to himself apart from what he is forced to. So, he begins by mentioning his Lord and attributes true perfection to Him, and then, he only attributes to himself what God has given him to own and what He has authorized for him—as He says: (He) Taught humankind what they knew not (), and They said: Glory be to You! We have no knowledge but that which You have taught us . . . () There are many other such verses.

Hence it appears that those [among them] who said, Your Lord knows best how long you have tarried, had a higher level of knowledge than those who said, We have tarried for a day or part of a day. They simply did not want to demonstrate good manners, otherwise, they would have just said: “Our Lord knows best how long we have tarried.” Also, they would not have been one of the two groups whom God referred to in the preceding verses by saying, Then We roused them up so that We might know which of the two parties would (more accurately) reckon the time for which they remained, because demonstrating good manners cannot be called “guessing” or “reckoning,” nor can someone who does that be said to be “guessing” or “reckoning.”

It also appears that those who said, Your Lord knows best how long you have tarried, were not the same as those who said, We have tarried a day, or part of a day, because the context is one of debate or response (as has been discussed), which means that those who spoke up second could not have been the same as those who spoke up first. Had they been the exact same people, it would have been correct for them to have said: “Our Lord knows best how long we have tarried” instead of “Your Lord knows best how long you have tarried.”

Thus, it can be inferred that there were seven or more of them because the statement says qāla (he said) once and qālū (they said) twice. The plural [form] refers to a minimum of three so there were no fewer than seven of them.

The sentence, Now send one of you with this silver (coin) of yours to the city, then let him see which of them has the best food (azkā ṭaʿāman), so let him bring you provision from it (minhu), is part of the conclusion to their debate. It contains an instruction or suggestion to send one of them as a messenger to the city to bring food for them. The pronoun hā in ayyuhā (which of them) refers to the city. What it means is “its inhabitants,” as is sanctioned by common usage.

Zakāʾ al-ṭaʿām means “the goodness of the food.” Alternatively, it is said to mean permissible (ḥalāl) or pure (ṭāhir) food. In the superlative degree (which is used here), it means the “best food”—and it still carries a sense of the first meaning.

The pronoun hu in minhu (from it) refers to the food, as is understood from the wording. Alternatively, it is said to refer to the “best food” (azkā ṭaʿāman). Min (from) can be either locative or partitive. It has also been claimed that the pronoun hu refers to the silver coin (wariq) and that min is partitive. However this is unlikely because it would require inferring another pronoun to refer to the previous clause. Furthermore, while hu is a masculine pronoun, wariq (silver coin) was qualified by a feminine demonstrative pronoun (bi wariqikum hādhihi) earlier on.

And let him behave with gentleness (wal yatalaṭaf), and by no means make your case known to anyone: Talaṭuf means exercising and exhibiting gentleness and kindness. Thus (the clause), and by no means make your case known to anyone, is an explanatory clause introduced by a conjunction, meaning, as per the context: “Let him exercise gentleness with the people of the city in going, coming, and dealing with them in order to avoid any quarrel or dispute which would lead them to know your case and make them aware of you.” Alternatively, it is said to mean, and let him exercise gentleness, only in dealing with them, but the unqualified nature of the wording refutes that.

For surely if they prevail against you, they would stone you to death, or force you back to their religion, and then you will never succeed, is the reason for advising the person to behave with gentleness and an explanation of the wisdom in doing so.

Ẓahara ʿalā shayʾ means “looking at and knowing about something” or “prevailing against something.” The verse has been explained. According to al-Rāghib, the word comes from ẓahr, meaning a person’s back, the opposite of his stomach (baṭn). That was the original meaning. Thereafter, it was borrowed to refer to the earth; so, ẓahr al-arḍ (the face of the earth) is said to be the opposite of the hidden depths (baṭn) of the earth. Hence, ẓuhūr (appearance) is said to be the opposite of buṭūn (being hidden) because of the normal concomitance between (a) being on the face of the earth and being seen or looked at, (b) being on the face of the earth and attainment, and (c) being on the face of the earth and overcoming. Thus, one says ẓahara ʿalayhi to mean (a) he looked at it and knew its position, (b) he attained it, or (c) he overwhelmed it. Thereafter, further forms were derived, such as aẓhara (he displayed), ẓāhara (he helped), taẓāhara (he manifested), and istaẓhara (he sought help).

The likely meaning of yaẓharu ʿalaykum from the context is “becoming familiar with you” and “knowing your (hiding) place.” This is the most comprehensive meaning because those people (the inhabitants of the city) had strength and power—and the youths had fled and remained in hiding. So if the people saw them, they would prevail over them and defeat them as they had wished to do.

Yarjumūkum means “they will stone you to death.” It is the worst way to be killed, and it inspires a sense of antipathy and repulsion. Choosing stoning over other ways of killing indicates that all the people of the city opposed their religion. Therefore, if they were to be seen, the people would rush out and join in to kill them. This type of killing is typically carried out by stoning.

Or force you back to their religion (aw yuʿidūkum fī millatihim): It is likely that iʿāda implies forcing them back in, as opposed to simply returning them, and this is the reason it is suffixed with fī (in) rather than ilā (to).

Had they returned to the people’s religion—a religion that they had publicly rejected, a religion which they had called a “grievous word” and a “lie against God,” their people would not have been satisfied with them simply declaring their beliefs or going through the motions. They would have had to join in with the people, worshiping idols and performing all the people’s religious rites, and they would have been prohibited from performing any of the religious practices of God’s religion or uttering a word of the truth.

Both reason and textual evidence indicate that there is no harm in this for someone who is forced by circumstances to stay in pagan lands (bilād al-kufr) and who is trapped among their people like an enfeebled prisoner. God has said: . . . not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith . . . (), and . . . but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully. . . ().

Such a person may believe in his heart but deny his belief with his tongue. However, if someone has been saved from them and has freedom to believe and act, but then casts himself into the peril of misguidance, causing himself to be trapped in a pagan society, unable to utter the word of truth, in a place where he cannot carry out his religious or human obligations, he would deprive himself of happiness and would never succeed, as God says: Surely (as for) those whom the angels cause to die while they are unjust to their souls, they shall say: In what state were you? They shall say: We were weak in the earth. They shall say: Was not God’s earth spacious, so that you should have migrated therein? So these it is whose abode is hell, and it is an evil resort ().

Thus, the reason for making the clause, and then you will never succeed, as a consequence to, or force you back to their religion, becomes apparent.

Poser: Since being compelled to practice dissimulation (that is, pretending not to believe) while secretly believing can always be forgiven, how can the clause “never succeed” be deemed consequential to “returning to their religion,” even though it appears from their situation that they would be forced to do so?

Reply: This has been disproved (based on our explanation) and, besides, if they exposed themselves or showed the people their situation in any way and were subsequently returned to their religion (or ways) even by force, they would willingly be the cause of that and thus they would not be excused at all.

A number of other unconvincing attempts have been made to respond to the above question as follows (in our comments).

1. Being forced to disbelieve may be a means for Satan to entice people into thinking it is good and to continue doing so.

Comment: The problem with this response is that one would have to say: “And it is feared that you will never succeed,” instead of opining categorically that they will never succeed.

2. What could be meant by “forcing you back to their religion” is an attempt to do so by conversion, rather than by coercion.

Comment: You know very well that the context of the story does not lend support to this response.

3. It is possible that at that time, dissimulation (taqiyya) by pretending not to believe was absolutely impermissible.

Comment: The problem with this response is that there is no evidence for it.

The context of their reported conversation—that is, from, how long have you tarried, up to, and you will never succeed, is amazing. It indicates the perfection of their love for each other for the sake of God, their religious brotherhood, the equality that they treated each other with, the advice they gave each other, and their kindness toward each other. It was stated above that what one group responded, Your Lord knows best how long you have tarried, shows that they had a higher, more elevated level of tawḥīd than the other group (who said), We have tarried for a day or part of a day.

Next there is (the advice), Now send one of you, which is a suggestion to all of them (equally) to send a messenger. The speaker did not say high-handedly: “One of you should go” (li-yadhhab aḥadukum) or “One of you go.” He did not say: “Go, so-and-so” or “Send so-and-so.” He also said, with this silver coin of yours, attributing the coin to all of them. All this is evidence of their brotherhood and equality.

Then let him see which of them has the best food and and let him behave with gentleness, are pieces of advice. For surely if they prevail against you, is advice to them out of concern for their souls so they would be safe to continue practicing their religion.

Because of the iḍāfa (possessive) construction and demonstrative pronoun specifying that particular silver coin, the phrase, this silver (coin) of yours (bi wariqikum hādhihi), hints there is a special reason for mentioning the coin. Contextually, sending someone to buy food would not normally call for singling out the coin by mentioning it and qualifying it specifically with a demonstrative pronoun. Perhaps the coin was mentioned along with a specifying demonstrative pronoun because the coin was the reason their secret was discovered and their situation became known. When he (the man who went to the city) took the coin out to pay for the food, (it was clear that) the coin had been minted three centuries earlier. Apart from this phrase (bi waraqikum hādhihi), nothing else in the verses narrating their story gives us any clue why their secret was discovered.

وَكَذَٰلِكَ أَعۡثَرۡنَا عَلَيۡهِمۡ لِيَعۡلَمُوٓاْ أَنَّ وَعۡدَ ٱللَّهِ حَقّٞ وَأَنَّ ٱلسَّاعَةَ لَا رَيۡبَ فِيهَآ إِذۡ يَتَنَٰزَعُونَ بَيۡنَهُمۡ أَمۡرَهُمۡۖ فَقَالُواْ ٱبۡنُواْ عَلَيۡهِم بُنۡيَٰنٗاۖ رَّبُّهُمۡ أَعۡلَمُ بِهِمۡۚ قَالَ ٱلَّذِينَ غَلَبُواْ عَلَىٰٓ أَمۡرِهِمۡ لَنَتَّخِذَنَّ عَلَيۡهِم مَّسۡجِدٗا ٢١

(18:21) And thus did We make (people) learn of them so that they might know that God’s promise is true, and so that as for the Hour (time of the Reckoning), there is no doubt about it. When they disputed among themselves about their affair and said: Erect an edifice over them, their Lord knows them best, those who prevailed in their affair said: We will certainly raise a masjid over them.

al-Mufradāt fī Gharīb al-Qurʾān says:

(The words,) ʿAthara al-rajul (meaning, the man stumbled); yaʿthur ʿathran or [yaʿthur] ʿuthūran (meaning, he stumbles a stumbling): (are used for) when he falls. It is used metaphorically for someone who stumbles on something without meaning to. God says: Then if it becomes known (ʿuthira) that they both have been guilty of a sin . . . (). One says: ʿuthirtu ʿala kādhā (something became known to me). And thus did We make (people) learn of them (wa kadhālika aʿtharnā ʿalayhīm), means: “We caused (some people to) alight on them while not at all seeking them.”

The comparison in the phrase, And thus did We make (people) learn of them, is like its parallel in, And thus did We rouse them. It means: “Just as we made them become forgotten for a time, and then roused them for such-and-such (reason), likewise We made (people) stumble across them.” The object of aʿtharnā is “people,” as implied by the context and as testified by the end of the verse and (the clause), so that they might know that God’s promise is true. The third person plural pronoun refers to “people.” Contextually, God’s promise means the Day of Resurrection.

The clause, As for the Hour, there is no doubt about it, is introduced by a conjunction, explaining the previous one.

When they disputed (yatanāzaʿūn) among themselves about their affair, is an adverbial phrase describing either, We made (people) learn, or, so that they might know. Tanāzuʿ means disputing with each other. It is said that the root meaning of tanāzuʿ is “contending with one another.” When used in its root meaning, it is transitive; but when used to mean disputing with one another, it is made transitive with fī, as in (the verse): . . . then if you quarrel about anything (tanāzaʿtum fī shayʾ) . . . ().

What is meant by “disputing among themselves” about their situation is the people disputing over whether they would be resurrected. The pronoun “their” in “their affair” conveys a sense of how much they cared about and were concerned about this matter. This is what can be deduced from the vocabulary used in the verse, using part of it to explain another.

Based on the above, what it [the verse] means is: “Just as We caused them to sleep then roused them for such-and-such reason, so likewise We shall make people witness them at a time when they are disputing among themselves over the matter of the resurrection, so that they might know that God’s promise (about the resurrection) is true and that there is no doubt about the Hour.”

Alternatively, it may mean: “We made them become known so that, in addition to disputing among themselves about the resurrection, people would realize that God’s promise to resurrect (people) is true.”

Their being awakened from sleep proves that the raising of the dead on the Day of Resurrection is a reality. The proof of this is that, for all that time, their souls were stripped from their bodies, they could not feel; their senses ceased to work their bodily functions—such as the growth of their hair and nails, the change in their appearance, and the graying (of hair)—were curtailed; their bodies and clothes neither decayed nor disintegrated; and, finally, they were exactly the same as they were when they entered the cave. This is exactly the way that souls are stripped from bodies upon death and will be returned to them as they were (on the Day of Resurrection). The Companions of the Cave being put to sleep and reawakened over three centuries later and the resurrection are both miraculous. It is only the difficulty people have believing in these two things that challenges them, not any real evidence against them.

This incident took place at a time when there was a dispute between two groups of people—the monotheists who believed that the soul leaves the body upon death only to be returned to it upon resurrection, and the polytheists who believed that the soul becomes separate and permanently departs from the body upon death. However, they did not believe in resurrection and may have instead believed in reincarnation. Under these circumstances, the whole incident was a divine sign with the purpose of dispelling any doubt in people’s hearts about resurrection by demonstrating it through a similar incident. Their difficulty in believing in it was eased when it actually happened.

This analytical belief grew and became stronger among the people when the Companions of the Cave died shortly after they were roused; they lived just hours (after being awakened), only allowing enough time for people to know about their situation, to gather around them, and to test and ascertain the veracity of their story.

Thus another explanation of God’s words becomes clear: the first two pronouns (“they” and “themselves”) in, When they disputed among themselves about their affair, refer to the people, the third person pronoun “their” refers to the Companions of the Cave; and “when” is an adverb of time (ẓarf), that they might know. The subsequent words, Their Lord knows them best, lend support to this interpretation.

There is an objection to this interpretation; first, it implies that the dispute took place after the men were made to stumble across the Companions of the Cave, which is not the case. Second, the dispute took place before they realized that God’s promise is true and that there is no doubt about the hour and their dispute was settled by this realization; so how can the dispute have coincided with this realization?

The answer to this contention is that, according to this interpretation of the verse, the people disputed over the Companions of the Cave after stumbling across them, while at the same time realizing that God’s promise is true and that there is no doubt about the hour. The dispute which did take place before the people stumbled across the Companions of the Cave and before they realized that God’s promise was true and that there is no doubt about the hour was their dispute among themselves over resurrection. According to this interpretation, it is not the dispute to which, When they disputed among themselves, refers.

Those who said, Erect an edifice over them—their Lord knows them best, were polytheists as evidenced by the words that followed, Those who prevailed in their affair said . . . According to one opinion, it means erecting an edifice over them, building something over the top of them to keep them away from and hide them from the people, to stop anyone from seeing them—as when one says banā ʿalayhi jidāran (lit. “he built a wall over him”); that is, when someone surrounds another person with a wall, putting him behind it.

This line, together with what precedes it, And thus did We rouse them, along with, And thus did We make (people) learn of them, alludes to the complete story, as if what is implied is: When their messenger came to the city, the circumstances and situation had changed, since three hundred years had passed after they had entered the cave. Polytheism was no longer prevalent, and the reins of the society had been given over to monotheism without him knowing it. It was not long before his secret was out. The news spread, and people gathered around him, before rushing up to and crowding the opening to the cave to inquire about their story. The divine proof was thus achieved, and then God took them to Himself. Therefore, after being awakened, they only remained alive for a few hours, during which time the people’s doubt about the matter of resurrection was dispelled. At that point, the polytheists said, Erect an edifice over them—their Lord knows them best.

In the clause, Their Lord knows them best, there is an allusion to a disagreement breaking out among the people who gathered around them. So they are the words of someone in despair who had discovered them and uncovered the truth of their situation. It can also be inferred from this clause that the people were disputing with each other over something peculiar to them; some of them were seeing the light (or truth), and others were indecisive but not pleased with what their opponents believed, so they said, Erect an edifice over them—their Lord knows them best.

The phrase, Their Lord knows them best, has two possible meanings, in line with the two possible interpretations of, When they disputed among themselves about their affair, referred to above. This is because, in either case, to a certain extent, the phrase follows on logically from the dispute between the people, as the reader will have already realized. Thus, if the dispute referred to in, When they disputed among themselves about their affair, is about the resurrection—either accepting or rejecting it—and the pronoun in the clause “their affair” (āmrihim) refers to the people, this means that they disputed with each other over the issue of resurrection.

Thus God made the people learn of them so that they would realize that His promise is true and that there is no doubt about the Hour. However, the polytheists did not end up where the sign was clearly pointing, so they said: “Erect an edifice over them and leave them as they are with the people disconnected from them. Nothing about their affair has become clear to us and we have not reached certainty about them. Their Lord knows them best.” The monotheists said: “Their affair is clear and their sign is manifest. We will certainly raise a masjid (mosque) over them, in which God will be worshiped and they will be remembered as long as it remains.”

On the other hand, if the dispute was over the Companions of the Cave and the pronoun in “their affair” refers to them, it means that God made the people stumble across them after they were roused from their sleep and later on made them die so that they—that is, the people—would realize that His promise is true and that there is no doubt about the Hour, and the purpose was achieved. They, that is the people, disputed among themselves about their, the Companions of the Cave’s, situation. It is as if they were disputing among themselves about whether they were asleep or dead, and whether they should be buried and interred or left as they were in the wide space inside the cave. So the polytheists said: “Erect an edifice over them and leave them as they are. Their Lord knows them best. Are they asleep or dead?” The monotheists said: “We will certainly raise a mosque over them.”

However, the context supports the first interpretation because the likely meaning of what the monotheists said, We will certainly raise a mosque over them, is their response to what the polytheists said, Erect an edifice over them. The two things said by the two groups only contradict each other on the basis of the first interpretation. The same applies to, Their Lord knows them best, especially since they said, “Their Lord” instead of “Our Lord”; all of that is more compatible with the first interpretation.

Those who prevailed in their affair said: We will certainly raise a mosque (masjid) over them: The monotheists were the ones who said that they build a place of prostration (masjid) as opposed to a place of worship (maʿbad), and this is testimony to that because a masjid, according to Qur’anic convention, is the name of a place taken to remember God and to prostrate to Him. God says: . . . and mosques (masājid) in which God’s name is much remembered . . . ().

There is a pause but not a conjunction because this is like a response to an implied question—as if someone asked: “What did the non-polytheists say?” So the response came, Those who prevailed in their affair said. . . “Their affair” in, Those who prevailed in their affair, means the affair referred to in, When they disputed among themselves about their affair, and the pronoun refers to the people. Thus, Those who prevailed, refers to the monotheists’ prevailing by because of the sign which proved that the resurrection was true. If the pronoun referred to the youths, prevailing would be through stepping up to address their affair, and, Those who prevailed, would mean the monotheists. Alternatively, it is said that it was the king and his aides (who prevailed). A further opinion is their close relatives (prevailed), but this is the most absurd opinion.

If “their affair” means something else and the pronoun refers to the people, “prevailing” would then mean the king or those in positions of responsibility in society, making the monotheists or the king and his supporters the ones who prevailed. If the pronoun refers back to “those who,” it would make those in charge the ones who prevailed. Their prevailing over their affairs would mean their prevailing over whatever affairs they wanted and empowered. Nevertheless, the first interpretation is the best.

This verse is one of the battlegrounds between the exegetes’ various opinions. They have incredible differences of opinion over its vocabulary, the plural pronouns within it, and its phrases. If all the possible explanations for the meanings of the vocabulary, the nouns to which the pronouns refer, and the particulars of its phrases which they have brought to light were multiplied together, there would be thousands of possible permutations. We have only referred to as many as is appropriate to the context. Whoever wants more than that should refer to the detailed exegeses.

سَيَقُولُونَ ثَلَٰثَةٞ رَّابِعُهُمۡ كَلۡبُهُمۡ وَيَقُولُونَ خَمۡسَةٞ سَادِسُهُمۡ كَلۡبُهُمۡ رَجۡمَۢا بِٱلۡغَيۡبِۖ وَيَقُولُونَ سَبۡعَةٞ وَثَامِنُهُمۡ كَلۡبُهُمۡۚ قُل رَّبِّيٓ أَعۡلَمُ بِعِدَّتِهِم مَّا يَعۡلَمُهُمۡ إِلَّا قَلِيلٞۗ فَ َ تُمَارِ فِيهِمۡ إِلَّا مِرَآءٗ ظَٰهِرٗا وَلَا تَسۡتَفۡتِ فِيهِم مِّنۡهُمۡ أَحَدٗا ٢٢

(18:22) (Some) say: (They were) three, the fourth of them being their dog; and (others) say five, the sixth of them being their dog, making conjectures at what is unknown; and (yet others) say seven, and the eighth of them is their dog. Say: My Lord knows best their number, none knows them but a few; therefore, contend not about them but with an outward contention, and do not question concerning any of them.

God cites the people’s disagreement over the number of Companions of the Cave and the various opinions on the matter. According to God—and He speaks the truth—there are three incremental, ascending views. One is that there were three of them and their dog was the fourth; the second is that there were five of them and their dog was the sixth. God comments on these by saying they are, making conjectures at what is unknown (rajman bi-l-ghayb), meaning speaking without knowledge.

This comment, about making conjectures, applies to both opinions. If it were applied to the second alone, it would have been correct to put the second opinion first and put the first one along with the third about which God says nothing to indicate disapproval.

The third opinion is that there were seven of them, their dog making eight. God cites it without any comment to indicate that it is false. This creates the impression that it is the correct opinion. It was already stated above in the discussion on their conversation, A speaker among them said: How long have you tarried? They said: We have tarried for a day or part of a day. (Others) said: Your Lord knows best how long you have tarried, that the wording gives the impression, or, indeed, indicates that there were at least seven of them.

Part of the beauty of the verse lies in enumerating all the opinions, arranging the numbers from three to eight in sequential order—three, the fourth of them, five, the sixth of them, seven, and the eighth of them.

The clause, Making conjectures at what is unknown (rajman bi-l-ghayb), is a specifying complement (tamyīz) describing the first two opinions as conjectures about the unknown. Rajm means stoning. It is as if what is meant by al-ghayb (the unseen) is ghāʾib ʿan al-ʿilm (absent from one’s knowledge). The person who says it does not know whether it is true or false. It compares someone who says something (without knowledge) with someone who wants to throw stones—he throws the stone without knowing whether it will hit the target or not. Perhaps that is what some of the opinions meant—they were conjectures at what is unknown; that is, they were making conjectures because the matter eluded them, and they had no actual knowledge of it.

Alternatively, it is said that rajman bi-l-ghayb means believing in the unseen, but this meaning is unlikely.

God says, three, the fourth of them being their dog, and, five, the sixth of them being their dog, without any conjunction. Then He says, seven, and the eighth of them is their dog, with a conjunction. Al-Kashshāf says that:

“Three” (thalātha) is the predicate of an omitted subject, with the implied meaning that they are three (hum thalātha). The same applies to “five” (khamsa) and “seven” (sabʿa). The fourth of them being their dog (rābiʿuhum kalbuhum), is a phrase—consisting of a subject and a predicate—adjectival to “three.” The same is true of (the phrase), the sixth of them being their dog (sādisuhum kalbuhum), and, the eighth of them being their dog (thāminuhum kalbuhum).

Some might wonder why there is (the conjunction) “and” (wa) in the third sentence but not in the first two sentences. The answer is that the conjunction “and” introduces a phrase describing something indefinite, just as it is sometimes placed in a phrase describing the condition or status of something definite, such as in jāʾani rajulun wa maʿahu ākharun (lit. “a man came to me and with him was another”) or marartu bi Zaydin wa bi yadihi sayfun (lit. “I passed by Zaid and in his hand was a sword”). Another example is: And never did We destroy a town except and it had a term made known ().

The point of this is to emphasize the connection of the phrase to what it describes, and to indicate that the description is firm and definite.

The (conjunction) “and” (wa) shows that those who said, seven, and the eighth of them is their dog, said this based on firm knowledge and with confidence; they were not conjecturing about the unknown like the others did. The proof of this is that God followed up the first two opinions with (the clause), conjectures at what is unknown, and followed up the third opinion with, none knows them but a few. Ibn ʿAbbās said: “When the ‘and’ (wa) appeared, the counting stopped.” That is, there were no more numbers that caught their attention; it was incontrovertibly and definitely confirmed that they were seven and their dog was the eighth.

Majmaʿ al-bayān says at the end of the summary of Abū ʿAlī l-Fārisī’s opinion:

“As for whoever says that this (conjunction) ‘and’ is exclusive to the number eight, citing the verse: . . . until they come to it and its doors shall be opened . . . (), as evidence because heaven has eight gates, the grammarians do not acknowledge this.”

The words, Say: My Lord best knows their number, none knows them but a few; therefore, contend not in the matter of them but with an outward contention, and do not question concerning them any of them, is a command to the Prophet to put a complete stop to their guessing by saying that God knows best. He alluded to this earlier, for it is similar to what the youths said when they were discussing the matter and tried to come to an agreement when, a speaker among them said, How long have you tarried? They said, We have tarried for a day or part of a day. (Others) said, Your Lord knows best how long you have tarried. Nevertheless, the above alludes to some of those whom the Prophet addressed by saying, My Lord knows best their number. For He said, ma yaʿlamuhu as opposed to la yaʿlamuhu. This indicates negation of the circumstantial phrase followed by an exception to it by saying, except for a few (illā qalīl), thus rendering a positive circumstantial meaning. What springs to mind is that they were some of the People of the Book.

In sum, this means that the three opinions were in circulation during the time of the Prophet. Thus, sa-yaqulūna thalāthatun (some will say three) is indicative of the future. Similarly, so are, wa yaquluna khamsatun (some say five), and, wa yaquluna sabʿatun (some say seven) since they are joined with “and” (wa) to the phrase containing a verb with the prefix for the future tense, which mean the near future in relation to the time when the verses were revealed or the time when the incident occurred, so take note of this.

Therefore, contend not (fa lā tumāri) in their matter but with an outward contention (illa mirāʾan ẓāhiran): Al-Rāghib says that:

“Miryah means hesitation about something, and that it has a narrower meaning than shakk (doubt, uncertainty). Imtirāʾ and mumārāt both mean contending over something about which there is uncertainty. The root meaning comes from marītu al-nāqah which one says when he rubs a camel’s udder to milk it. Argument is called mumārāt because of a person arguing (mumāri) persistently in the discussion, draining his opponent of everything he has to say.”

It is said that “outward contention” means keeping the discussion shallow, restricting it to the Qur’anic account and not calling anyone ignorant or arguing against what they are saying. Alternatively, it is said that an “outward contention” is one which undermines the validity of the opponent’s proof. One says al-mirāʾ al-ẓāhir when his proof is destroyed. It is also said that ẓahara means that something is remote, as the poet says:

Wa tilka shakāt ẓāhirun ʿanka ʿāruhā

This is a complaint, the disgrace of which is remote from you.

The verse (therefore) means: “Since your Lord knows best, and He has already informed you of their tidings, argue with them only about the youths on the basis of clear argument (muḥajja ẓāhira) without going deeply into the matter, or on the basis of the argument which eliminates their proof (muḥajja dhāhiba li-ḥijjatihim), and do not ask for a definitive statement on the youths from any of them. Your Lord suffices you.”

وَلَا تَقُولَنَّ لِشَاْيۡءٍ إِنِّي فَاعِلٞ ذَٰلِكَ غَدًا ٢٣ إِلَّآ أَن يَشَآءَ ٱللَّهُۚ وَٱذۡكُر رَّبَّكَ إِذَا نَسِيتَ وَقُلۡ عَسَىٰٓ أَن يَهۡدِيَنِ رَبِّي لِأَقۡرَبَ مِنۡ هَٰذَا رَشَدٗا ٢٤

(18:23–24) And do not say of anything: Surely I will do it tomorrow, unless God (so) pleases; and remember your Lord when you forget and say: Maybe my Lord will guide me to a nearer course to the right than this.

Regardless of whether this addresses the Prophet alone, or the Prophet and others, it refers to a person who believes he can attribute doing something to himself, either now or in the future.

With its divine teachings, the Qur’an takes the position that there is nothing in existence, be it essence or cause and effect, which does not belong to God alone. He can do to it what He wills and He decides about it what He wills, without anyone being able to reverse His decision. No one can own anything apart from what God allows him to own and (what God) gives him control over, making him only the owner of what He has allowed him to own and in control of only what He has put him in control of. There are numerous Qur’anic verses alluding to this truth, so there is no need to cite them all.

Nothing in the cosmos with any agency or affect—what we call agents, means, and active causes—is independent in its causation. Nor can it act or create an effect without Him. People can only do or effect what God wills them to do, in the sense that He gives them control, instead of taking control away from them and willing the opposite.

In other words, no natural cause is inherently a necessary cause in and of its own self. Instead, it is only a cause because He gives it the ability to engage in cause and effect, and because He does not will the opposite. One could say this is accomplished through Him facilitating the path toward the effect, or through His permission (idhn). Permission is granting ability and removing impediments. Many verses indicate that every action performed by every agent is contingent on His permission. As He says: Whatever palm tree you cut down or leave standing upon its roots, it is by God’s command. . . (), No affliction comes about but by God’s permission. . . (), As for the good land, its vegetation springs forth (abundantly) by the permission of its Lord. . . (), And a soul will not die but with the permission of God. . . (), And it is not for a soul to believe except by God’s permission. . . (), And We did not send any messenger except that he should be obeyed by God’s permission. . . (). Along with many other verses.

Those who comprehend the status of their Lord and submit to Him should not see themselves as independent causes of their own actions, independent of anyone else. Instead, they possess what they possess because God has granted them possession; they have control because God has granted them control. All strength belongs to God. If they resolve upon doing something, they should resolve upon trusting in God as in: . . .So when you have decided, place your trust in God. . . ().

When they promise something or tell people about what they are going to do, they should qualify it with “by the permission of God” or “so long as He does not will something else.”

If a mind is already exposed to this Qur’anic truism, then when His words, And do not say of anything: Surely I will do it tomorrow, unless God pleases, come knocking on [the mind’s] door, this is the first meaning that will come to mind, particularly since these words come after an explanation of His oneness, divinity, and lordship; and since the previous verses say that everything on earth is only an embellishment and that it will be turned into bare ground without herbage.

Since humanity’s deeds are part of everything on earth, it follows that humanity’s deeds are also an embellishment. People’s deeds are like an ornamental garment which envelops them, and by which they are tested—although people believe that they own their deeds.

This is because (the words), And do not say of anything: Surely I will do it tomorrow, unless God pleases, stops people from attributing their actions to themselves, even though, doubtlessly, there is no harm in doing so because, frequently, God attributes actions to His Prophet and to other people. He may even command people to attribute actions to themselves, such as in: . . . My work is for me and your work is for you and. . . (), . . . We shall have our deeds and you shall have your deeds. . . ().

Thus, the Holy Qur’an does not reject the idea of attributing actions to the agent per se; rather, it only rejects the idea that an agent is independent in his action and free from His will and His permission. This is what makes the exception in the clause (unless God pleases) correct.

Thus, it is clear, that (grammatically) the phrase implies a bāʾ of concomitance (bāʾ al-mulābasa)—an exception “emptied” of all circumstances and all times. Its implied meaning is: “And do not say of anything (that is, of anything upon which you have resolved), surely I will do it tomorrow in any time or circumstance unless you say God willing—that is, you say, surely I will do it tomorrow if God wills that I do it or unless God wills that I do not do it.” In any event, it means, “if God allows it to be done.”

This is the result of reflecting on the meaning of the verse and it is supported by the end of the verse. However, exegetes have other explanations for the verse as follows:

1. It means the same thing as the previous explanation, except that there is an elliptic “saying” in the exceptive phrase. The implied meaning is: “Unless you say, God willing.” The omission of “you say” shifts “God willing” to a future meaning, making this God’s way of training and educating His servants to say these words after anything they tell others they are going to do, steering them away from being categorical, in order to prevent them from lying or breaking an oath if they fail to do so due to any impediment. This explanation is attributed to al-Akhfash.

Comment: The problem with this explanation is that it is an unnecessary contrivance; in addition, the substitution changes the meaning, as is obvious.

2. The literal meaning is intended throughout, except that the verbal phrase is substitutable with a verbal noun (al-maṣdar al-muʾawwal ilayh), an yashāʾ Allāh (God pleases). It is intended as an object, rendering a meaning of, “And do not say of anything: ‘Surely I will do it tomorrow,’ unless God pleases and wants, because God only wants acts of obedience.” Thus, it is as if what is being said is: “And do not say of anything: ‘Surely I will do it tomorrow,’ unless it is an act of obedience.” The interdiction is to guide to the best course of action (li-l-tanzīh) and not to indicate impermissibility (li-l-taḥrim), such that an indication could be made that it is permissible to resolve to do permissible things and talk about it.

Comment: The problem with this explanation is that it is based on construing “will” (mashiʾa) as legislative will (irāda tashrīʿiyya). There is no evidence for this and He has never used mashiʾa in this sense. On the other hand, the contingency of actions on His creational will is confirmed and has been used in several places in the Qur’an; for instance, what Moses said to al-Khiḍr: He said: If God pleases (in shāʾ Allāh), you will find me patient . . . (); what Shuʿayb (Jethro) said to Moses: . . . if God pleases (in shāʾ Allāh), you will find me one of the good ones (); what Ishmael (Ismāʿīl) said to his father: . . . if God pleases (in shāʾ Allāh), you will find me one of the patient ones (); . . . you shall most certainly enter the Sacred Mosque, if God pleases (in shāʾ Allāh). . . () and many other verses.

Note: This explanation is based on the fundamentals of the Muʿtazilīs. According to the Muʿtazilīs, the only will God has with regard to His servants’ actions is a legislative will, connected to acts of obedience. However, both reason and textual evidence reject this proposition.

3. The exceptive sentence refers to doing but not saying, without any need to draw an inference that anything is implied. It means: “Do not say about anything: ‘Verily I shall act independently in doing something, unless God wills something different by making an impediment appear.’” As the Muʿtazilīs say, a servant performs an act independently unless God makes an impediment appear that is stronger than he is. What this really means is: “Do not say about doing a thing what the Muʿtazilīs say.”

Comment: The problem with this view is that according to the above (explanation), the exceptive sentence would be more applicable to doing than to saying; so, there is no reason to say that an exceptive sentence cannot refer to doing something. An exceptive sentence refers to doing in many places in the Qur’an without there being any problem in understanding. For instance, quoting Abraham: . . . And I do not fear in any way those that you set up with Him, unless my Lord pleases . . . (), . . . And it befits us not that we should go back to it, except if God our Lord pleases . . . (), . . . They would not believe unless God pleases . . . () and many other verses.

Thus, the verse should be construed in a manner which is compatible with it.

4. The exceptive sentence refers to all times and the object of “pleases” (yashāʾ) is “saying.” This means: “Do not say that unless God pleases (yashāʾ) that you should say it.” “Pleases” means permits—that is, do not say it unless God allows you to do so.

Comment: The problem with this explanation is that it is contingent upon inferring something—that is, “telling” is implied. However, there is no evidence for this in the wording. Without this inference, it is an imposition of an unknown obligation.

5. The exceptive sentence refers to “ever,” as in (the verse): . . . abiding in it as long as the heavens and the earth endure, except as your Lord please. . . (). It means: “Do not ever say that.”

Comment: The problem with this explanation is that it contradicts many verses cited above which attribute both past and future acts to the Prophet and to everyone else and even command the Prophet to attribute his actions to himself; for instance: . . . My work is for me and your work for you. . . (), . . . Say: I will recite to you an account of him () and . . . And remember your Lord when you forget. . . ().

The connection and shared context between this verse and the previous verse indicates that “forgetting” means “forgetting to say, God willing.” Thus, remembering one’s Lord means remembering His status, calling attention to that which is the cause of the exception—that is, He looks after every soul through what it earns; He puts people in possession of their actions and makes them able to do them, making them in control of what He put them in control of and able to do what He made them able to do.

The verse means: “When you forget to say, ‘God willing’ then remember that you have forgotten to do so, and remember your Lord in such a manner that you keep in mind that you would have done it, had you remembered—surrendering authority and power to Him and qualifying all actions with His permission and His will.”

Because the instruction to remember (dhikr) God is unqualified, it is not restricted to any particular wording. What is called for is remembering Him in a specific capacity whether (a) with the clause “unless God pleases”—appending it to what one has said when one remembers it and has not finished speaking, or (b) repeating what one has said and acknowledging that it is only if God pleases, or (c) after either a short or long pause, referring back pronominally to what one has just said before acknowledging that it is only if God pleases. Some narrations say that when the verses were revealed, the Prophet said: “God willing” or he remembered Him by seeking forgiveness, or something similar.

It is now clear from the above that the following explanations offered by others are incorrect (because):

First, that the verse is independent of the preceding ones, and that forgetting means forgetting Him or any kind of forgetfulness, rendering a meaning of: Remember your Lord when you forget Him, then remember Him, or, Remember your Lord when you forget anything.

Second, based on the first explanation, what is meant by remembering Him is exclusively by saying “unless God pleases,” even after a long pause, or exclusively seeking His forgiveness, or regretting one’s negligence.

And say: Maybe my Lord will guide me to a nearer course to the right than this: Here, too, the principle of continuity and the shared context of a duty being imposed in the previous verses dictate that the relative pronoun “this” (hādhā) should refer to remembering after forgetting, rendering a meaning of: “Hope that your Lord will guide you to something nearer to the right than forgetting before remembering”—that is, always remembering without ever forgetting. Thus, it is like the verses calling him (the Prophet) to always remember, such as: And remember your Lord within yourself humbly and fearing and in a voice not loud in the morning and in the evening, and be not of the heedless ones ().

Mentioning something every time one forgets and then remembers, and keeping at it time and again is one of the means by which one always remembers it.

It is astonishing that exegetes have taken (the pronoun) “this” (hādhā) in the verse to refer to the reports of the Companions of the Cave and have said that the verse means: “Say: Maybe my Lord will give me signs signaling my prophethood better at guiding people than the reports of the Companions of the Cave.” The problem with this explanation is obvious.

Even more astonishing than that is what others say—that (the pronoun) “this” (hādhā) refers to what one has forgotten and that the verse means: “If you forget something, pray to God to remind you of it, and ask your Lord if He does not remind you of what you have forgotten to guide you to something better and more useful than what you have forgotten.”

Still more astonishing is what others say—that the clause, and say: Maybe my Lord will guide me, is introduced by a conjunction explanatory to, and remember your Lord when you forget, meaning: “When you forget, repent to your Lord by saying: Maybe my Lord will guide me to a nearer course to the right than this.” The second and third explanations could be turned into a single explanation; they are both contingent upon “when you forget” meaning, forgetting anything, but the reader will already have realized the problem with that.

وَلَبِثُواْ فِي كَهۡفِهِمۡ ثَلَٰثَ مِاْئَةٖ سِنِينَ وَٱزۡدَادُواْ تِسۡعٗا ٢٥

(18:25) And they remained in their cave three hundred years and they added (another) nine.

This clarifies how long they remained asleep in the cave. This stay is what is meant in the verses telling the story. The length of their stay was referred to vaguely in the initial verses, Then We veiled their hearing for numbered years in the cave.

This is supported by what follows it: Say: God knows best how long they remained, plus, recite what has been revealed to you, followed by, and say: The truth is from your Lord, coupled with the fact that He does not mention any other figure. Thus, saying, God knows best how long they remained, after stating the figure is like saying: “My Lord knows best their number” and it alludes to the correctness of the stated figure.

One should not pay attention to the view that the clause, And they remained in their cave, is a quote from the People of the Book, whereas, God knows best how long they remained, is a response to them. Similarly, one should not pay attention to the view that, And they remained. . . and they add (another) nine, is an allusion to the opinion of the People of the Book, the pronoun referring back to them, meaning that the People of the Book added nine years to the actual figure; and then, Say: God knows best how long they remained, is a response to that.

What is narrated from the People of the Book is that the Companions of the Cave remained two hundred years or less, not three hundred and nine, or even three hundred.

Sinīn (years) is not a specifying complement to the number. Otherwise, it [the verse] would have said, thalatha miʾatin sana (lit. three hundred “year” instead of three hundred “years”). Rather, it is in apposition to thalāthamiʾatin (three hundred), as they say. There is in the words a similarity to the indeterminate, sinīna ʿadadan (numbered years) at the beginning of the verses.

Perhaps the aim of substituting sinīn (years) for sana (year) is to show that they tarried for a long time (from our perspective). Thus saying “and (some) add (another) nine” implies a sense of juxtaposition as if to say, “and they remained in their cave for three hundred years that seemed so long that some added another nine.” This does not contradict what was explained before with regard to sinīna ʿadadan (a limited or counted number of years) which was mentioned to show how few the years were because the aim behind each of the two sections is different. In the prior section, the aim was to deny that there was anything amazing about the divine sign in the cave when compared with the divine sign shown by making everything on earth an embellishment for it. Thus, it was more appropriate to show how meagre the time period was. However, in this section, the aim is to show that their sojourn in the cave was one of His signs and was a proof against those who denied the resurrection; thus, it is more appropriate to describe the time period as long. The time period can be described in either way (short or long) depending on which perspective it is seen from—it is a paltry thing from His perspective but a long time from our perspective.

Adding nine years to three hundred years—the length of their stay—gives the outcome that they remained in their cave for three hundred solar years because the difference between three hundred solar years and three hundred lunar years is approximately nine years. There should not be any doubt that the verse means lunar years by sinīn (years) because a sana (year) in Qur’anic convention is a lunar year made up of the months which begin with the new moon. They are what count in the Islamic shariah.

Al-Tafsīr al-kabīr disapproves of this strongly because the two figures do not correspond exactly and (the author) challenges what is narrated on the authority of ʿAlī on the matter, even though the difference between three hundred solar years and three hundred and nine lunar years is less than three months. Approximation like this is common in speech.

قُلِ ٱللَّهُ أَعۡلَمُ بِمَا لَبِثُواْۖ لَهُۥ غَيۡبُ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضِۖ أَبۡصِرۡ بِهِۦ وَأَسۡمِعۡۚ مَا لَهُم مِّن دُونِهِۦ مِن وَلِيّٖ وَلَا يُشۡرِكُ فِي حُكۡمِهِۦٓ أَحَدٗا ٢٦

(18:26) Say: God knows best how long they remained; to Him are (known) the unseen things of the heavens and of the earth; how clear His sight and how clear His hearing! There is none to be a guardian for them besides Him, and He does not make anyone His associate in His Judgment.

This is a continuation of the story about the Companions of the Cave. It refers to the people’s disagreement among themselves over the matter and to the fact that what God related of their story is the truth, about which there is no doubt.

Say: God knows best how long they remained, suggests that—according to the previous verse—the people were not certain how long they remained in the cave so the Prophet was instructed to argue the point on the basis of God’s knowledge—that He knows them (and their situation) better than anyone else.

To Him (lahu) belong the unseen things of the heavens and the earth, explains that He knows best how long they remained. Lahu (to Him) indicates exclusive possession. It means that He alone owns everything in the unseen realm, in the heavens and on the earth, nothing eludes Him, even if it eludes the heavens and the earth, because He owns the unseen in the true meaning of the word “owns.” He has perfect sight and perfect hearing so He knows best how long they remained—which is part of what is unseen.

Thus, how clear His sight (abṣar), and, how clear His hearing (asmiʿ), both of which are exclamations, mean how perfect His sight and hearing are! These complete the reasoning as if to say: “How can He not know best how long they remained, when He placed them among the unseen and He possesses the unseen, and He saw their situation and heard what they said?”

Some say that lahu (to Him) indicates that God alone knows; that is, the unseen is His in terms of knowledge. This proves that He knows all other creations (that is, non-unseen creations) because if we acknowledge that He has knowledge of the unseen, we can be certain that He knows everything else.

Comment: This is incorrect because the intention of (the words) “how clear His sight and how clear His hearing!” as explained above most likely refers to something novel, and does not emphasize something already said. Similarly, the literal meaning of lahu is complete possession, not just knowledge.

The phrase, There is none to be a guardian for them besides Him, and He does not make anyone His associate in His judgment, denies that anyone has guardianship over them other than God. This includes both independent and dependent guardianship; that is, guardianship independent of God, or by way of the guardianship being delegated by God to someone else.

Because a verb (“make”) is used instead of an adjective, the second phrase (He does not make . . .) indicates, through its construction, that the first phrase also denies that anyone else has guardianship other than Him, whether independently or through delegation (that is, whether the guardian would manage their affairs other than God, or whether the guardian were put in charge).

The second phrase denies that God made anyone an associate in ruling or judgment in such a manner that God would be their guardian and delegate matters and governance to them, the way that rulers appoint governors and commissioners in various areas to handle governance directly without the knowledge of the rulers.

The phrase can be taken to mean: “How can He not know best how long they remained if He alone is their guardian and He Himself passes judgment among and over them?” The pronoun (them) in lahum (for them) refers to the Companions of the Cave or to everything in the heavens and the earth, as understood from the previous phrase, which puts rational beings first before everything in the heavens and the earth. The three explanations are in order of their appropriateness, the first one being the best.

Thus the verse incorporates two proofs that God knows best how long they remained. First, applicable both to them (the Companions of the Cave) and to everything else, to Him (lahu) belong the unseen things of the heavens and the earth; how clear His sight and how clear His hearing! So He knows best everything, including how long the Companions of the Cave remained. Second, a proof exclusive to them—that is, There is none to be a guardian for them, because God is their guardian, directly responsible for the judgment passed over them, so how can He not know better than anyone else? The two sentences are separate and not joined with a conjunction because their aim is different.

Examining Narrations

1. About the verse, Or do you think that the Companions of the Cave. . ., Tafsīr al-Qummī says (it means):

“We have brought you signs more amazing than it. They were youths who lived in the period between Jesus son of Maryam and Muḥammad. The Inscription was two copper plaques which were marqūm—that is, they were inscribed with the account of the youths and how they submitted to God, what King Decius wanted from them, and what happened to them and transpired with them.”

2. The same book (Tafsīr al-Qummī) says:

My father told me on the authority of Ibn Abī ʿUmayr on the authority of Abū Baṣīr on the authority of Abū ʿAbdillāh:

The reason Surat al-Kahf was revealed was because Quraysh sent three people to Najrān: al-Naḍr b. al-Ḥārith b. Kaldah, ʿUqbah b. Abī Muʿīt, and al-ʿĀs b. Wāʾil al-Sahmī to learn from the Jews what they should ask God’s Messenger.

So they set off for Najrān (and went) to the Jewish rabbis, and they said: “Ask him three questions; if he answers you in accordance with what we say, he is telling the truth. Then ask him a single question to which, if he claims to know the answer, he is lying.”

They asked: “What are these questions?”

They replied: “Ask him about the youths in the prior era who went away, stayed away, and fell asleep. How long did they remain asleep before waking up? How many of them were there? What was with them besides themselves? What was their story? Ask him about Moses when God commanded him to follow the scholar and learn from him. Who was he? How did he follow him? What was his story with him? Ask him about the one who set out where the sun sets and rises until he reached Gog and Magog’s barrier. Who was he? What was his story?”

They then told them the tidings of these three questions, saying: “If he answers as we have dictated, he is telling the truth, but if he tells you something different, do not believe him.”

They asked: “What is the fourth question?”

They replied: “Ask him when the Hour will be. If he claims knowledge of it, he is lying because no one else but blessed and almighty God knows when the Hour will be.”

Thereafter, they returned to Mecca and gathered before Abū Ṭālib, saying: “Abū Ṭālib, your nephew claims that tidings from heaven come to him. We will ask him questions; if he answers them, we will know that he is telling the truth, but if he does not answer us, we will know he is lying.”

Thereafter, Abū Ṭālib replied: “Ask him whatever seems proper to you,” and so they asked him the three questions.

God’s Messenger replied: “I will answer you tomorrow without any exception.”

Thereafter, revelation was withheld from him for forty days until the Prophet felt worried and his Companions who had believed in him had doubt. The Quraysh rejoiced, and mocked and annoyed them, and Abū Tālib was sorrowful.

Then, after forty days, Surat al-Kahf was revealed, and so God’s Messenger said: “Gabriel, you took your time.” He replied: “We can only reveal by God’s permission.”

Thereafter, God revealed: “Or do you think, O Muḥammad that out of all Our signs the Companions of the Cave and the Inscription were an amazing sign of Ours?” He then related their story, saying: “When the youths sought refuge in the cave, they said: Our Lord! grant us mercy from You, and provide for us a right course in our affair.”

3. The same book (Tafsīr al-Qummī) quotes Imam al-Ṣādiq as saying:

The Companions of the Cave and the Inscription lived during the time of a tyrannical, violent king who enjoined his subjects to worship idols. He would kill whoever failed to do so. They were a group of believers who worshiped God, mighty and sublime is He. The king put people in charge of the city gates to prevent anyone from leaving the city without prostrating to the idols. Thus, they set out on the pretext of hunting. They passed a shepherd on their way and invited him to their religion, but he did not respond. However, he had a dog with him; it did (respond), and went off with them.

Thereafter, the Companions of the Cave set off from the city on the pretext of going hunting (but were actually) fleeing from that king’s religion. Then, when evening fell, they entered that cave, their dog with them, and God cast that soporific over them, as God says: Then We veiled their hearing for a limited number of years in the cave. And then they slept until God made that king and the people of the city perish. That era passed and another era came, along with other people.

Then, when they woke up, they said to each other: “How long have we been asleep here?” They looked at the sun which had risen and said: “A day or part of a day.” Then, they said to one of them: “Take this silver coin and enter the city secretly—without their recognizing you—and buy us food because if they know about us and recognize us, they will kill us or force us back into their religion.”

That man went and saw the city was different from what he was used to and saw people different from before whom he did not know, who did not know his language, and whose language he did not know. They then asked him: “Who are you? Where have you come from?” He told them, and so the king of that city set off with his companions, accompanied by the man, before stopping at the opening of the cave.

They began looking in and some of them said: There are three of them and the dog is their fourth. Others said: Five and the dog is their sixth. Others said: Seven and the dog is their eighth. God enveloped them with awe, rendering them all, except their companion, unable to go in to them. When he went in to them, he found them fearful that it was Decius’ cohorts they had heard. Their companion told them that they had been asleep for a long time and that they were a sign for the people. They then wept and asked God to put them back to sleep as they were in their resting places.

The king then said: “We should build a place of prostration here for us to visit them because they were a group of believers.” They were turned twice every year, sleeping on their right side for six months and their left side for the other six months, their dog with them throughout, stretching its paws out in the wide open space in the cave, as He said: “We relate to you their story with truth.”

Author’s comment: Of all the traditions narrating the story, this is one of the clearest worded and freest of falsification. However, in spite of that, it says that those who disagreed over how many of them there were—by saying three, five or seven—were the people of the city who gathered around the opening to the cave after the youths woke up; this contradicts the literal meaning of the verse. It also says that the Companions of the Cave did not die the second time. Instead it says that they went back to sleep, as did their dog, stretching out its paws in the wide open space within the cave; and, also, that they continued to be turned twice a year from right to left and vice versa, remaining as they were, even though there is no known cave like this on the face of the earth with people sleeping in it.

Besides, the end of this narration—which we have refrained from citing here, fearing that it is the words of al-Qummī or another narration—says that (the words), And they remained in their cave three hundred years and (some) add (another) nine, is what the People of the Book said and that, Say: God knows best how long they remained, was a response to them. The reader will already have realized from our explanation above that this is refuted by the context, and that it would not be an acceptably eloquent form of composition.

Both sects (Sunnī and Shī‘ah) report many narrations explaining the story. However, the narrations are contradictory and there are discrepancies, such that two narrations with exactly the same content in all respects can scarcely be found.

Part of this discrepancy is what some of the narrations say about the four questions. Some say the four questions were about the Companions of the Cave, Moses and the scholar, Dhū l-Qarnayn, and when the Hour will come.

Others say that the questions were about the Companions of the Cave, Dhū l-Qarnayn, and the soul (that is, only three questions are mentioned). They (that is, the Jewish rabbis) said that the sign of the Prophet’s truthfulness would be his not answering the last question. So he (that is, the Prophet) answered about the Companions of the Cave and Dhū l-Qarnayn, but because the verse: . . . Say: The soul is one of the commands of my Lord . . . () was revealed, he did not answer the last question. The reader will already have realized from the explanation of the “verse of the soul” (āyat al-rūḥ, in Ar. vol. 13) that the wording (in verse ) is formulated as an answer and not as a rebuke.

Another example is that some narrations say that there was just one group known both as the Companions of the Cave and of the Inscription, whereas others say that the Companions of the Inscription were not the same as the Companions of the Cave, and that God alluded to them together in His words, but only told the story of the Companions of the Cave and eschewed telling the story of the Companions of the Inscription. They tell a story about them—they were a group of three who went out foraging for their family but the heavens came down upon them, and so they sought refuge in a cave. A rock from the top of the mountain fell down and blocked off the exit.

They said to each other that each of them should make mention of some of his good deeds so that God might free them. Thereafter, one of them cited his work for God’s sake and prayed to God seeking the intercession of his work, and the rock moved enough to let in some light. Then the second did the same and the rock moved enough for them to be able to see each other. Then the third did the same, and God freed them, and so they escaped.

Nuʿman b. Bashīr cites this without stating the chain of narration and attributing it (marfūʿan) to the Prophet.

Anyone familiar with the style of the Qur’an (lit. the “wise remembrance”) will refuse to contemplate the idea that it alludes to two different stories only to go into detail about one of them and completely forget the other one.

Another example is that some narrations say that the king from whom the youths fled was the Roman Emperor Diocletian (285–305 CE); others say that he claimed to be a god; and others say that he was the Roman Emperor Decius (249–254 CE), even though there are decades between the two. The king enjoined idolatry and the killing of monotheists. Other narrations say that he was a Zoroastrian propagating the Zoroastrian religion, even though history does not record that Zoroastrianism spread into the Byzantine Empire. Other narrations say that it happened in the time before Jesus.

Another example is that some narrations say that al-Raqīm was the name of the city they left; others, that it was the name of the valley; others, that it was the name of the mountain the cave was in; others, that it was the name of the dog; others, that it was a stone plaque; others, a lead plaque; others a copper plaque; and others, a gold one on which their names, the names of their fathers, and their story were inscribed, and that it was placed above the entrance to the cave. Others say that it was placed inside it, others say that it was hung above the city gate, others say that it was in one of the king’s vaults, and others say that there were two plaques.

Another example is that some narrations say that the youths were children of the king and children of noblemen; others, that they were the children of scholars; others, that there were seven of them, the seventh being a shepherd who, along with his dog, tagged along with them on the way.

Wahb b. Munabbih’s narration says that they were bathhouse attendants who worked in one of the city’s bathhouses; this narration tells the story of the king enjoining idolatry. Some say that they were some of the king’s ministers whose counsel he sought in his affairs.

Another example is that some narrations say that they showed their opposition, and the king realized it before they left. Others say that he only found out about it after they had left. Others say that they colluded in leaving and left. Others say that they left without knowing each other and without prearranging it, but subsequently got to know each other and reached an agreement in the desert. Others say that a shepherd tagged along with them, as their seventh, others say that he did not follow them but his dog did and traveled with them.

Another example is that some narrations say that when they fled and the king looked into their affair, the king could not find them or any trace of them. Others say that he searched for them, found them sleeping in the cave, and ordered that an edifice be built at the entrance to the cave, trapping them, so that they would die of starvation and dehydration as punishment for their disobedience. Thereafter, they remained like that until, when God wanted to awaken them, He sent a shepherd who knocked down the edifice to build a pen for his sheep. At that time, God roused them and what happened to them was as per the story told by God.

Another example is that some narrations say that when their affair became known, the king came with some people and went in to talk to them in the cave. While he was talking to them and they were talking to him, all of a sudden they bade him farewell, wished him peace, and passed away. Others say that they died or went back to sleep before the king went in to see them, the entrance to the cave was blocked off, and they disappeared from sight without their being able to find a way in to see them. Thereafter, they built a masjid (mosque) to pray in.

Another example is that some of the narrations say that their souls were taken. Others say that God made them sleep a second time, and they will remain asleep until the Day of Resurrection, and that He turns them twice a year—from right to left and vice versa.

Another example is that the narrations disagree over the length of their stay. Most say they remained three hundred and nine years as stated in the verse in the words of God. Others say—that is what the People of the Book said with, God knows best how long they remained, being a response to them. Some say that three hundred years was what He said, and it was the People of the Book who added another nine.

There are other discrepancies between the narrations. We have collected most of the Sunnī narrations from al-Durr al-manthūr and the Shia narrations from Bihār al-anwār, al-Burhān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān, and Tafsīr nūr al-thaqalayn. Anyone who wants to scrutinize (the narrations) further should refer to them.

What the narrations can be said to agree upon or reach a quasi-agreement upon is the fact that they were a group of monotheists who fled from a tyrannical king who forced people to attribute partners to God, so they sought refuge in the cave, slept, and so on, up to the end of the story told by God.

4. Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī relates on the authority of Sulaymān b. Jaʿfār al-Hamadānī:

Jaʿfār b. Muḥammad (Imam al-Ṣādiq) asked me: “Sulaymān, what is a youth (fatā)?”

I replied: “May I be sacrificed for you, youth is when we are young.”

He told me: “Did you not know that the Companions of the Cave were all middle-aged, but God called them youths (fitya) because of their faith, Sulaymān? Whoever believes in and fears God is a youth.”

5. Something to the same effect is narrated in al-Kāfī on the authority of al-Qummī, attributed to Imam al-Ṣādiq but without a chain of narration:

It is narrated on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās that they actually were youths. Al-Durr al-manthūr says that Ibn Abī Ḥātim cites Abū Jaʿfar as saying: “The Companions of the Cave were money changers.”

6. Al-Qummī also narrates via his chain of narration back to Sudayr al-Ṣayrafī on the authority of Abū Jaʿfar (Imam al-Bāqir):

“The Companions of the Cave were money changers.”

7. Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī says that Durust related that Abū ʿAbdillāh (Imam al-Ṣādiq), referring to the Companions of the Cave, said:

“They were exchangers (ṣayārifa) of words, not dirhams. [money]”

8. Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī says that Abū Baṣīr related from Abū ʿAbdillāh (Imam al-Ṣādiq):

“The Companions of the Cave kept their faith secret, pretending to be unbelievers, so God gave them two rewards.”

9. Something to the same effect is related in al-Kāfī from Hishām b. Sālim from him (Imam al-Ṣādiq). Al-ʿAyyāshī narrates something to the same effect from al-Kāhilī and also two narrations from Durust, both from him (Imam al-Ṣādiq). One of these two narrations says:

“They would tie sashes around their waists, and attend the festivals.”

Author’s comment: It may be stated that the literal meaning of His words, When they stood up and said: Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth; we will by no means call upon any god besides Him, is that they did not believe in dissimulation (taqiyya), as some exegetes believe to be possible based on His words, or force you back to their religion, and then you will never succeed, as stated above.

However, this is not the case, for the reader will already have realized that their departure from the city was a flight from the abode of polytheism, in which they were prevented from proclaiming the word of truth and practising monotheism. When six noble people who knew each other planned together to leave, and turned their backs on their people, property, and homeland, this could not be called anything else but opposing idolatry. They would have been in great danger if the people had prevailed against them and they would have come to one of two lots—being stoned to death or forced back into the people’s religion.

Thus it is clear that when they originally stood up and said, Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth; we will by no means call upon any god besides Him, this was not an open form of opposition by them. Nor was it a public condemnation of the people’s religion or an assault on their way, because the general situation did not allow them to do so. They were choosing the side of God, resolving to remain firm in monotheism. If it is conceded that, when they stood up and said: Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, means that they went to the public and refused to hide their belief, that would have been during the last days of their time among the people. Before that, they would inevitably have been hiding their belief. Thus it is clear that nothing in the context of the two verses contradicts the idea that the youths hid their belief (that is, they engaged in taqiyya) throughout the time they were among the people and in the city.

10. Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī also relates from Abū Bakr al-Ḥaḍramī from Abū ʿAbdillāh (Imam al-Ṣādiq):

“The Companions of the Cave set off without knowing each other and without any prior agreement. When they reached the desert, they made covenants and pacts with each other. This one took a covenant from that one, and that one from this one. They then said: ‘Proclaim what you believe in’ and lo and behold, they believed in the same thing.”

11. The following narration on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās says the same thing:

Al-Durr al-manthūr, citing Ibn Shayba, Ibn al-Mundhir and Abū Ḥātim on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās:

“We fought the battle of al-Maḍīq alongside Muʿāwiya near Byzantium and passed by the cave where the Companions of the Cave—whom God mentions in the Qur’an—are.”

Muʿāwiya then said: “If only they were shown to us and we could see them.”

Ibn ʿAbbās replied: “This is not for you. God forbade that to someone who was better than you, and He said: ‘If you looked at them you would certainly turn back from them in flight, and you would certainly be filled with awe because of them.’”

However, Muʿāwiya said: “I will not give up until I know what they know,” and so he dispatched men, telling them: “Go and enter the cave and see.” They went off, but when they entered the cave, God sent a wind to push them out. News of that reached Ibn ʿAbbās, and so he started telling their story.

He (Ibn ʿAbbās) said: “They were in one of the tyrannical kings’ kingdoms and the people began worshiping (different things) until they began worshiping idols. These youths were in the city. When they saw that, they left that city, so God brought them together without prior agreement. They started asking each other: ‘Where do you want to go? Where are you going?’ They began hiding things from each other because one did not know why the other had left, and the other did not know why the first one had left, until they promised they would not harm each other if they told each other. Lo and behold, they were all agreed on one thing—otherwise they would have kept secrets from each other—and united in saying the same thing: ‘Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth. . . a profitable course. . .’”

He (Ibn ʿAbbās) said: “They stayed, and so people came looking for them, not knowing where they had gone. They raised the matter with the king, and he said: ‘Those people will be of significance after today—people who left without anyone knowing where they have gone, without any betrayal, and without any information on them.’ He then called for a lead plaque and wrote their names on it, then threw it in his vault. That is what, or do you think that the Companions of the Cave and the Inscription, means; the inscription was the plaque on which they were written about. So they set off before finally entering the cave, and then God veiled their hearing and they slept. If the sun shone on them, it would burn them, and if they were not turned, the ground would eat into them. That is what, And you might see the sun. . ., means.”

He (Ibn ʿAbbās) said: “That king then passed on, and another king came along. He worshiped God, forsaking those idols, and was fair with the people. Thus, God roused them for His purpose, one of them asking: ‘How long have you tarried?’ One of them replied: ‘A day.’ Another said: ‘Two days.’ Another said: ‘More than that.’ Their eldest said: ‘Do not disagree among yourselves because no people have ever disagreed among themselves without being doomed. Rather, send one of yourselves with this silver coin of yours to the city.’”

“He saw clothes that he did not recognize and buildings he did not recognize. He then approached a baker and tossed him a silver coin. Their dirhams had the imprint of young camels and the baker did not recognize the silver coin. He asked: ‘Where did you get this silver coin from? You’ve found a stash? Show it to me. Otherwise I’ll report you to the amir.’”

“He (the messenger) asked: ‘Are you threatening me with the amir?’”

“And so he came to amir who was in charge. He (the amir) asked: ‘Who is your father’? He replied ‘so-and-so,’ but he did not know him. He asked: ‘Who is the king?’ He said ‘so-and-so,’ but he did not know him. The people gathered around him, and so he brought it up with their scholar. He asked him and he told him. Thereafter he said: ‘Bring me the plaque.’ It was brought to him. He named his companions—‘so-and-so’ and ‘so-and-so’—and their names were inscribed on the plaque. He told the people: ‘God has guided you to your brothers.’”

“They set off on mounts, finally reaching the cave. When they approached the cave, the youth said: ‘Stay where you are until I go in to see my companions. Do not rush in and frighten them—they do not know that God has turned toward you and inspired your repentance (from polytheism).’”

“They asked: ‘Will you come back out to us?’”

“He replied: ‘Yes, God willing.’ He then entered, and they did not know where he went. He disappeared from sight, and they tried to go after him but they could not get in to them. They then said: ‘We will certainly raise a masjid over them.’ Thereafter, they raised a masjid over them to invoke blessings upon them and seek forgiveness for them.”

Author’s comment: This narration is well known; it is cited by exegetes in their exegeses and has met with approval. However, it is still not free of problems; for instance, it suggests that they are still asleep without the possibility of their being seen on account of divine intervention. The cave which is in Maḍīq, the cave of Ephesus, well-known to this day, is not like this.

The verse which Ibn ʿAbbās relies on only reflects their state when they were still asleep before being awakened, not after they were awakened. Another narration is narrated on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās which contradicts this one—namely the one in al-Durr al-manthūr, ʿAbd al-Razzāq and Ibn Abī Ḥātim on the authority of ʿIkrima. It tells the story and concludes with:

So the king rode off, the people riding with him, and they finally reached the cave. The youth then told them: “Let me go in to my companions.” Thereafter, when they saw him and he saw them, their ears were smitten. When they had given him enough (time), the king and the people went in. There were bodies which had not decayed at all. The only thing was that they had no souls in them. The king then said: “This is a sign God has sent you.” Thereafter, Ibn ʿAbbās fought alongside Habīb b. Musallama. They passed by the cave and, lo and behold, there were bones inside. A man said: “These are the bones of the Companions of the Cave.” Ibn ʿAbbās replied: “Their bones decayed more than three hundred years ago.”

This narration compounds the problem. “Their bones decayed” means that the story had to have happened toward the beginning of the Common Era, or before it. Thus it contradicts all the narrations except the ones which say that they were around before Christ.

Another problem is what he said: “. . . one of them asking: ‘How long have you tarried?’ One of them replied: ‘A day.’ Another said: ‘Two days. . .’” The Qur’an says: They said: We have tarried for a day or part of a day. (Others) said: Your Lord knows best how long you have tarried. This is what is conceivable and what would be expected from people who had been asleep, woken up, and were discussing how long they had slept, if they were relying on circumstantial evidence. They would not think that they had been asleep for two or more days, and no evidence would have suggested that. Moreover, their disagreement in determining how long they had slept was not a reprehensible disagreement—that is, it was not a disagreement over doing something, which would lead to their destruction and would thus be forbidden. It was just an inevitable difference of opinion.

Another example is what the end says—that he entered, and they did not know where he had gone. ʿUmiya ʿalayhim means, some say, that the entrance to the cave disappeared from sight because God hid it. That does not fit in with what the beginning of the narration says—that it was apparent and well known in those areas. So did God erase it for that king and his companions but then manifest it to the people?

12. In his exegesis, al-ʿAyyāshī narrates on the authority of Aḥmad b. ʿAlī on the authority of Abū ʿAbdillāh (Imam al-Ṣādiq) something to the same effect as the beginning of the narration of Ibn ʿAbbās’ statement that al-Raqīm was a lead plaque on which their names were inscribed. However, other narrations are related from Ibn ʿAbbās refuting that; for instance, in al-Durr al-manthūr from Saʿīd b. Mansūr, ʿAbd al-Razzāq, al-Fāryābī, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, al-Zujjājī in al-Amālī, and Ibn Mardawayh on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās:

“I do not know what al-Raqīm is. I asked Kaʿb and he replied: ‘The name of the township they left.’”

13. The same Tafsīr relates from ʿAbd al-Razzāq on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās:

“I know the whole of the Qur’an except for four things: refuse (ghislin) (), tenderness (ḥanānan) (), tender-hearted (awwāh) (, ) and raqīm ().”

14. Tafsīr al-Qummī says in Abū Jārūd’s narration on the authority of Abū Jaʿfār that His words, for then indeed we should have said an extravagant thing, mean:

“An outrage against God if we say that He has a partner.”

15. Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī relates from Muḥammad b. Sinān from al-Baṭīkhī from Abū Jaʿfār (Imam al-Bāqir) concerning God’s words, if you looked at them you would certainly turn back from them in flight, and you would certainly be filled by them with terror:

“That does not mean the Prophet but instead just the believers, one to another. However, it is addressed to him, putting him in their place.”

16. Tafsīr Rūḥ al-Maʿāni says:

“Their names, according to what is authentically narrated on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās, were Maximilianos, Iamblichos, Martelos, Thabyunus, Dardunus, Kafashititus, and Mantonwasis, who was the shepherd. The dog’s name was Qiṭmīr.”

The same Tafsīr says:

“It is narrated on the authority of ʿAlī that their names were Iamblichos, Maximilianos, and Messelinia who were the king’s right-hand men; and Marnush, Dabarnush, and Shadhnush, who were his left-hand men. He would seek the counsel of these six. The seventh was the shepherd whose name is not mentioned in this narration. It does however state that the dog’s name was Qiṭmīr.”

He (the author of the Tafsīr rūḥ al-maʿānī) says:

“Authenticating the attribution of this narration to ʿAlī is a long story. ʿAllāma Suyūṭī states in the footnotes to al-Bayḍāwī that al-Ṭabarānī narrates it on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās in al-Muʿjam al-awsaṭ via an authentic chain of narration. That which is in al-Durr al-manthūr is al-Ṭabarānī’s aforementioned narration from al-Awsaṭ via an authentic chain of narration back to Ibn ʿAbbās.”

He (continues to) say:

“They have been called by different names in some narrations. Ibn Ḥajar the ḥāfiẓ states in Sharḥ al-Bukhārī that there is much disagreement about how to pronounce their names and there can be no certainty on how to spell them. Al-Baḥr says that the names of the Companions of the Cave are not Arab and cannot be spelled out with internal vowelling or dots, plus the chain of narration introducing them is weak.”

Author’s comment: The narration attributed to ʿAlī is the one narrated by al-Thaʿlabī in al-ʿArāʾis and al-Daylamī in his book, without the intervening chain of narration, but it contains shocking elements.

17. Al-Durr al-manthūr says:

Ibn Mardawayh cites Ibn ʿAbbās as saying: God’s Messenger said: “The Companions of the cave will be the Mahdī’s helpers.”

18. Al-Burhān says on the authority of Ibn al-Fārisī:

“Al-Ṣādiq said: Twenty-seven footsoldiers from the people of Moses who guide and are fair through the truth, seven of the Companions of the Cave, Joshua b. Nūn, Abū Dujānah al-Anṣārī, Miqdād b. al-Aswad and Mālik al-Ashtar will emerge from the Kaʿba’s courtyard for the Qāʾim (the Mahdī). They will be helpers and rulers for him.”

19. Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī relates from ʿAbdullāh b. Maymūn from Abū ʿAbdullāh from his forefather ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib:

“When a person swears (ḥalafa) by God, he will be excused (fa lahu thunyāha) for forty days. That is because a group of Jews asked the Prophet about something and he said: ‘Come to me tomorrow,’ without telling them that he would tell them, ‘God willing.’ Thereafter Gabriel was withheld from him for forty days. He then came to him and said: And do not say of anything: Surely I will do it tomorrow, unless God pleases and remember your Lord when you forget . . .”

Author’s comment: Thunyā with a damma followed by a sukūn maqṣūr is a noun derived from istithnāʾ (exception). There are other narrations to this effect related from the two Ṣādiqs (Imam al-Bāqir and Imam al-Ṣādiq). The likely meaning of ḥalafa in some of them is speaking categorically and assuredly, as is implied by his relying on what the Prophet said as evidence. As for the discussion on qualifying an oath after it is made and breaking it or not, this is best left to jurisprudence (fiqh).

Discourse

The discussion “A Detailed Discussion of the Story of the Companions of the Cave” appears here in the printed volume. Read it in the Al-Mizan App.

---

1. In reference to the story of Joseph (Yūsuf). (Ed.) ↩︎

2. According to al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, Ibn al-Mudhalliq was from the ʿAbd Shams clan. Neither he, his father, nor his forefathers could find a home for the night. Thereafter, a saying developed: “more bankrupt than Ibn al-Mudhalliq” (aflas min Ibn al-Mudhalliq). (Trans.) ↩︎

3. Taqiyya means concealing one’s conviction and faith from the enemies to avoid worldly, spiritual or religious harm. It has its root in the Qur’an and in the conduct of the Prophet’s Companions; the Prophet’s approval of it is a vivid testimony to its existence and permissibility during the early period of Islam. (Trans.) ↩︎

4. There are three types of exceptive expressions in Arabic grammar. The first, when both the main noun and the excepted noun represent the same kind or type, is known as the continuous exceptive. The second type, when the main noun represents a different type or kind from the excepted noun, is known as the discontinuous exceptive. The third type is known as an emptied (mufarragh) exceptive, and can be seen when the main noun is deleted and only the excepted noun is mentioned. (Ed.) ↩︎

5. This is what idolaters generally believe in—they do not think that a person comes to an end when he dies. The only difference is that they do not believe in resurrection, believing instead in reincarnation. (Ed.) ↩︎

6. Bāʾ is a grammatical particle in Arabic. (Ed.) ↩︎

7. Some scholars believe that al-Khiḍr is Elijah, while others say he is Andrea. (Ed.) ↩︎

8. A specifying complement (mumayyiz) to a number between 3 and 10 is plural but a specifying complement to a number over 10 is singular. Because the word sinīna (years) is in apposition, this rule does not apply and so it is plural. (Ed.) ↩︎

9. The next paragraph begins with “He said,” indicating that Imam al-Ṣādiq was still speaking; but this has been omitted here for the sake of clarity since the entire section is a quotation from Imam al-Ṣādiq. (Ed.) ↩︎

10. In al-Durr al-manthūr. ↩︎

11. In al-Durr al-manthūr cited by Ibn al-Athīr in al-Kāmil fī-l-tārīkh. ↩︎

12. According to the summary of western scholars, there are four versions of the story of the Companions of the Cave. They are fundamentally the same but the details differ: (1) the Syriac narration—the oldest found is as stated by Jacob of Serugh (d. 521 CE); (2) the Greek narration attributable to the tenth century, taken from the Syriac on the authority of Symeon the Metaphrast; (3) the Latin narration on the authority of Gregory of Tours; and (4) the Islamic narration attributable to the Syriac. There are narrations in Coptic, Ethiopian, and Armenian texts, all ultimately attributable to the Syriac. The names of the Companions of the Cave in the Islamic narrations are taken from the narrations by others. Gregory states that some of these names were their names before they became Christian and were baptised. These are their names in Greek and Syriac: (1) Maximianus/Maximilianos; (2) Yamlika/Malchus/Iamblichos; (3) Martinos/Martelos; (4) Dionysius/Dionysios; (5) Ewan/Ioannes; (6) Kashfutit/Exakoustodianos; (7) Antunis (Aftunis)/Andonios/Antonios; and (8) Qitmir/Koimeterion. In Latin, their names were: (1) Maximianus; (2) Malchus; (3) Martianus; (4) Dionysius; (5) Johannes; (6) Constantinus; and (7) Serapius/Serapion. Gregory states that before they became Christian, their names were: (1) Achilles; (2) Diomedes; (3) Eugenis; (4) Stephanus; (5) Probatius; (6) Sabbatius; and (7) Kyriakos. Some think that the Arabic names are taken from the Coptic taken [in turn] from the Syriac. (Auth.) ↩︎