Verses 15–44
These verses present some of the stories of David and Solomon, including some wonders about the kingdom that God gave Solomon.
Commentary
وَ لَقَدْ آتَيْنا داوُدَ وَ سُلَيْمانَ عِلْماً وَ قالا الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي فَضَّلَنا عَلى كَثِيرٍ مِنْ عِبادِهِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ١٥
(27:15) And certainly We gave knowledge to David and Solomon, and they both said: Praise be to Allah, Who has preferred us over many of His believing servants.
The word ʿilman (knowledge) is in the indefinite form, which shows significance in this case. Another verse referring to David’s knowledge is: And We gave him wisdom and a clear judgment (). Another verse referring to Solomon’s knowledge is: So We made Solomon understand it; and to each one We gave wisdom and knowledge (). Note that the subsequent part of this verse [] refers to both of them.
… and they both said: Praise be to Allah, Who has preferred us over many of His believing servants: There are two possible interpretations for “preference” in this verse: (1) It means being preferred over others by knowledge in particular, as suggested by the context of the verse. (2) It means unconditional preference in general, which would include all of God’s exclusive blessings upon them. Some of these blessings upon David were: making the mountains and birds subservient to him; making iron soft for him; and making him a king. Some of these blessings upon Solomon were: making the jinn, the animals, the birds and the wind subservient to him; teaching him the language of birds; and making him a king kingdom. The first interpretation could be confirmed by the theme of the verse [where there is mention of knowledge prior to this]. The second interpretation could be confirmed by the unqualified use of the word “preference” in the verse.
And they both said: Praise be to Allah…: Here they acknowledge God’s preference. The beginning of the chapter involved an implied promise that God will soon bless the believers with what will delight them. Therefore, this sentence serves as evidence for that. We shall see similar acknowledgements by Solomon which serve the same purpose later on in the chapter.
وَ وَرِثَ سُلَيْمانُ داوُدَ وَ قالَ يا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ عُلِّمْنا مَنْطِقَ الطَّيْرِ وَ أُوتِينا مِنْ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ إِنَّ هذا لَهُوَ الْفَضْلُ الْمُبِينُ ١٦
(27:16) And Solomon inherited from David, and he said: O people! We have been taught the language of birds, and we have been given all things; most surely this is manifest grace.
That is, Solomon inherited David’s wealth and kingdom. According to some exegetes, what is meant is that Solomon inherited David’s prophethood and knowledge. The problem with this view is that prophethood cannot be inherited because it is not transferable. Knowledge also cannot be inherited, although it can be transferred, in a sense. Even so, transfer of knowledge is only applicable in the case of acquired mental knowledge. The knowledge that is exclusively found among the prophets and messengers is of a different type. Their knowledge is not a result of mental activity, but it comes from God’s grace and endowment. Hence, non-prophets can inherit knowledge from the prophets [through their teaching and preaching], but a prophet does not inherit his knowledge from another prophet or a non-prophet.
… and he said: O people (al-nās)! We have been taught the language (manṭiq) of birds and we have been given all things; most surely this is manifest grace: Here, Solomon appears to be boasting about himself and his father, but he is in fact speaking of God’s bounties, as per His command: And as for the favor of your Lord, do announce (it) (). Some exegetes have insisted that the plural pronouns in “We have been taught” and “We have been given” refer to Solomon alone, not to him and his father. Such use of plural is common in the language of kings and great figures; it is a way of including their servants and associates who help them in governing their kingdom. However, this view is not fully supported by the theme and thread of speech in the last verse.
The meaning of nās (people, humankind) here is clear: It refers to all people, not any particular group. Some exegetes have said that nās, in this verse, means “prominent ruling figures or scholars.” However, this view is not plausible.
The word manṭiq is synonymous with nuṭq (language, speech), which, as we know, refers to simple or compound sounds that have been set by convention to indicate a certain meaning that is intended by a speaker. The intended meaning is called kalām (speech). According to al-Rāghib, the word manṭiq is only used for human beings. The Noble Qur’an, however, uses manṭiq with a more comprehensive meaning, which is the expression and indication of any intended meaning by anything. God says: And they shall say to their skins: Why have you borne witness against us? They shall say: Allah Who makes everything speak has made us speak (). There are two possible explanations for this usage: (1) It is based on analyzing and dissecting the meaning of a term that is exclusively used for physical and material applications, and then applying it to immaterial and non-physical cases. The Qur’an has used this method for most concepts that have exclusively physical and material applications, such as seeing (ruʾyah), perception (naẓar), hearing, tablet, pen, throne, and seat (kursī). (2) It is based on the idea that the term [manṭiq] has a general and comprehensive meaning to being with. If it is exclusively used for human beings, it is only due to the frequency of this usage.
Either way, the language of birds is what certain birds use to convey their intended meaning. Every species of bird makes simple sounds under specific conditions and on specific occasions for various reasons. For example, they have sounds for mating, attacking, defending, fear, pleading, and begging. The same is seen in other animals. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the language of birds in this verse is much subtler and more comprehensive than that. There are a few reasons for this:
(1) The context of the verse is about an exclusive favor that God bestowed upon David and Solomon by His grace. It was something beyond the access of ordinary people. This is while the abovementioned language of birds is accessible to everyone, and everyone can understand it.
(2) What God narrates in the following verses about the conversation of Solomon with the hoopoe involves a variety of sublime teachings that cannot be conveyed by the few types of sounds that is typically heard from a hoopoe. In this chapter, the hoopoe talks about God, His magnificent Throne, and His unity, power, knowledge and Lordship. He also talks about Satan and how he adorns the actions of people in their sights, as well as guidance, misguidance, and other related concepts. He further speaks of the kingdom [of Sheba], its queen, her throne, her people, and their prostration to the sun. Then Solomon commands him to take his letter, cast it upon them, and then see how they will respond. It is clear for anyone who is well-versed in these meanings and linguistics that these are deep and expansive teachings whose comprehension hinges on knowing thousands and thousands of concepts. How could a very few and simple sounds suffice to convey all these things in detail?
(3) There is no evidence that every sound or vibration that an animal emits can be detected and distinguished by our senses. This is confirmed by what is narrated in the following verses from an ant, while our hearing cannot detect an ant’s sound for sure. It is also confirmed by what contemporary scientists have discovered—that people can only hear a certain range of frequencies (roughly 16 to 32,000 Hz). Our ears are incapable of hearing sounds with higher or lower frequencies, but perhaps other animals—or some of them—are able to hear them. Zoologists have discovered wonders and subtleties about the understanding and comprehension of a variety of animals—such as horses, dogs, monkeys, bears, bees, ants, and others—that have not been discovered in most human beings.
Based on the above, the theme and context of the verses show that birds have a special language which God taught to Solomon. This invalidates the view, suggested by some exegetes, that “it was Solomon’s miracle to make the birds speak; otherwise, they do not have their own language.”
… and we have been given all things…: That is, we have been given a share of everything. “All things” would include anything that can be imagined to exist, because “thing” (shayʾ) is one of the most comprehensive concepts, which is further emphasized by “all.” However, this sentence is said in a context of talking about God’s favors and blessings, and not even all favors and blessings, but specifically blessings that can be given to humans for their enjoyment. This context qualifies the meaning of “all things.” The implied meaning is: God has given us a fair share of every blessing that a person can be given and can benefit from, such as knowledge, prophethood, kingdom, judgment and other material and spiritual blessings.
… most surely this is manifest grace: This is a way of showing gratitude and emphasizing that what he said is a description of God’s favors, not an expression of vainglory, pride or conceit. This is apparent because he ascribes all of these favors to God by saying: We have been taught and We have been given. Some exegetes hold that, in these sentences, the speaker is God, not Solomon. However, this would be against the flow of the verse.
وَ حُشِرَ لِسُلَيْمانَ جُنُودُهُ مِنَ الْجِنِّ وَ الْإِنْسِ وَ الطَّيْرِ فَهُمْ يُوزَعُونَ ١٧
(27:17) And his hosts of the jinn and the men and the birds were gathered (ḥushira, from ḥashr) to him, and they were formed into groups (yūzaʿūna, from wazʿ).
Ḥashr means “to gather and muster the people and send them to do some task by force.” Wazʿ means “to prevent and stop.” Wazʿ has also been interpreted as “detaining” and “keeping in custody.” The verse has been interpreted as follows: Solomon’s hosts of jinn, men, and birds were gathered before him, and they were prevented from dispersing or intermingling. Each group was kept separate and restrained in its place.
It can be deduced from this verse that Solomon had hosts of jinn and birds, which used to travel with him, just like his host of men. Referring to them as “hosts” that were “gathered,” as well as the context of the following verses, suggests that these hosts were specific subgroups of jinn, men and birds, whether the particle min (lit. “of”) is partitive or descriptive.
The author of al-Tafsīr al-kabīr [that is, al-Rāzī] has made some strange inferences from these verses, such as: (1) All jinn, men and birds were Solomon’s hosts. (2) Solomon ruled over the entire earth. (3) God made the birds intelligent and responsible at his time, but then He reverted them to their previous condition. He has made a similar claim about the ant that spoke. In his exposition of the verse, he says:
It means that God made each of these types [of things] one of his hosts, which means that they would act only according to his will. Such submission only makes sense in beings that have some share of intellect (ʿaql) which makes them subject to duty and responsibility. They should have had at least as much intelligence and comprehension as a child who is very close to the age of religious accountability. That is why we said that God made the birds at his time among intelligent beings. This, however, is not the case at our time, albeit there are some animals in whom God has inspired certain subtleties that are specifically related to their needs, or which bear special benefits for the people, such as the honeybee and other beings.
The weak points in the above interpretation are needless of exposition.
The jinn have been mentioned before the men and birds because the subservience of the jinn is the strangest. Then men are mentioned before birds because making men subservient to someone is also strange, not to mention that jinn and men are complementary.
حَتَّى إِذا أَتَوْا عَلى وادِ النَّمْلِ قالَتْ نَمْلَةٌ يا أَيُّهَا النَّمْلُ ادْخُلُوا مَساكِنَكُمْ لا يَحْطِمَنَّكُمْ سُلَيْمانُ وَ جُنُودُهُ وَ هُمْ لا يَشْعُرُونَ ١٨
(27:18) Until they came upon the Valley of the Ants, an ant said: O ants! Enter your houses, (that) Solomon and his hosts may not crush you (yaḥṭimannakum, from ḥaṭm) while they do not know.
The word “until” (ḥattā) shows the end of what is understood from the last verse. Ḥaṭm is synonymous with kasr (to break, to crush). The plural pronoun “they” refers to Solomon and his hosts. The verse uses the preposition ʿalā (over) because their advent was from above. It has been said that the Valley of the Ants was in Syria. Others have said it was in the land of Ṭāʾif. Others have said at the furthest end of Yemen. The ant’s statement shows that Solomon and his hosts were traveling on the land.
The implied meaning is: Solomon and his hosts travelled until they came upon the Valley of the Ants. Thereupon, an ant said to the other ants: “O ants! Enter your houses, lest Solomon and his hosts break you; that is, lest they step on you, while they are unaware.”
فَتَبَسَّمَ ضاحِكاً مِنْ قَوْلِها وَ قالَ رَبِّ أَوْزِعْنِي أَنْ أَشْكُرَ نِعْمَتَكَ الَّتِي أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيَّ وَ عَلى والِدَيَّ وَ أَنْ أَعْمَلَ صالِحاً تَرْضاهُ وَ أَدْخِلْنِي بِرَحْمَتِكَ فِي عِبادِكَ الصَّالِحِينَ١٩
(27:19) So he smiled (fa-tabassama), laughing (ḍāḥikan, from ḍiḥk) at its words, and said: My Lord! Inspire me that I should be grateful for Thy favor which Thou hast bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I should act righteously such as Thou art pleased with, and admit me, by Thy mercy, among Thy righteous servants.
It is said that tabassum is a stage before laughing [that is, smiling]. Therefore, mentioning laughter (ḍiḥk) afterwards is a way of saying that his smile was very close to laughter.
Solomon understanding the ant’s speech does not contract what he said earlier—“We have been taught the language of birds” ()— because the former statement does not exclude the possibility of understanding what other animals say. It could be that he also knew the language of other animals—or some of them—such as ants.
However, a group of exegetes have assumed that “We have been taught the language of birds” () negates understanding anything beyond that. Thus, with difficulty, they have tried to justify his understanding of the ant’s speech. Some have said that this only happened once. Some have said that the ant had wings, and therefore was classified as a “bird.” Some have said that the ant speaking was one of Solomon’s miracles. Some have said that he did not hear any sound from it, but he understood what was in the ant’s heart through inspiration from God.
The context of the verses is sufficient to dismiss these speculations. The fact of the matter should be clear given what we said above concerning what is meant by the language of animals in these verses.
… and said: My Lord! Inspire me (awziʿnī, from īzāʿ) that I should be grateful for Thy favor which Thou hast bestowed on me and on my parents, …: Īzāʿ means ilhām (to inspire). Solomon smiled with delight because of God’s blessings upon him. He was pleased with the lofty positions that God had granted him, including prophethood, kingdom, knowing the language of animals, and having hosts of jinn, men and birds. Thus he asked God to evoke in him gratefulness for His bounties, and actions that would please Him.
In asking for gratefulness, he specifies God’s favors upon himself and upon his parents. This is because the blessings upon his parents were in a way blessings upon himself, for his existence was through them. God blessed his father David with prophethood, kingdom, wisdom, decisive judgment and other favors; and He blessed his mother by making her the wife of the Prophet David, giving her Prophet Solomon as a son. Thus God made her part of the household of prophethood. This supplication shows that Solomon’s mother was among those who followed the straight path. She was one of those whom God has blessed, who are one of the four groups mentioned in the verse: Those upon whom Allah has bestowed favors, of the prophets and the truthful and the martyrs and the righteous ().
… and that I should act righteously such as Thou art pleased with…: The conjunction “and” joins this sentence to: that I should be grateful for Thy favor. It means: “Inspire me to do righteously….” This request is much loftier and nobler than asking for tawfīq (facilitation, ability, reconciling) to do good deeds, because facilitation pertains to the availability of external means in a way that matches one’s felicity, while the inspiration that he asked for is an inner drive toward felicity and salvation. Thus, it is likely that he intended was to be given the same kind of waḥy (revelation, inspiration) with which God had honored Abraham and his family. God describes this waḥy where He says: And We revealed to them the doing of good (). Essentially, this kind of waḥy refers to being aided by the Holy Spirit, as we discussed in our exposition of verse .
… and admit me, by Thy mercy, among Thy righteous servants: “Righteousness” here is not qualified by “deeds” [that is, it does not describe actions]; therefore it refers to the inherent goodness and the essential righteousness of one’s soul. It is what qualifies a person to receive every form of divine honor and grace. Evidently the righteousness of one’s essence is a higher stage than righteousness of actions. Hence, Solomon’s requests are ordered from lowest to highest: that I should act righteously such as Thou art pleased with, and admit me, by Thy mercy, among Thy righteous servants (). While the righteousness of deeds is attributable to his action and volition in a way, the righteousness of his essence is not. That is why he asked God to grant him righteousness of essence, but he did not ask God to grant him righteousness of deeds; rather he asked Him to inspire him to do righteous deeds.
“Admit me among them” means “make me one of them.” Solomon did not directly ask for “essential righteousness,” but he asked to be made one of God’s righteous servants. By this expression he asked for the blessings that God exclusively bestows upon these servants, the choicest of which is the lofty station of servitude (ʿubūdiyyah). Indeed he was granted this, as God describes him: How excellent a servant! Surely he was frequent in returning (to Allah) ().
وَ تَفَقَّدَ الطَّيْرَ فَقالَ ما لِيَ لا أَرَى الْهُدْهُدَ أَمْ كانَ مِنَ الْغائِبِينَ ٢٠
(27:20) And he reviewed (tafaqqada) the birds, then said: How is it I see not the hoopoe or is it that he is of the absentees?
Al-Rāghib says:
Tafaqqud means taʿahhud (to inquire, to follow up), except that tafaqqud is paying attention to the loss or lack (fiqdān, fuqdān) of something, while taʿahhud is paying attention to a previous tie or situation (ʿahd). God says: And he reviewed (tafaqqada) the birds.
The first part of Solomon’s question [that is, “How is it I see not the hoopoe”] shows his surprise with himself for not being able to see the hoopoe among the birds. It is as if it was not right to raise a doubt about the bird’s absence from his convoy, or about its failure to obey him. Then he asked about the hoopoe’s absence as a second possibility. The implied meaning is: Why do I not see hoopoe among the birds that accompany my convoy? Or is it that the hoopoe is one of those who are absent?
لَأُعَذِّبَنَّهُ عَذاباً شَدِيداً أَوْ لَأَذْبَحَنَّهُ أَوْ لَيَأْتِيَنِّي بِسُلْطانٍ مُبِينٍ ٢١
(27:21) I will most certainly punish him (la-uʿadhdhibannahu) with a severe punishment, or slaughter him (la-adhbaḥannahu), or he shall bring to me (la-yaʾtiyannī) a clear plea (bi-sulṭān mubīn).
The letter lām at the beginning of the three verbs indicates that a vow being sworn. Sulṭān mubīn means “a clear proof.” Here, Solomon mentions three possible judgments for the hoopoe: severe punishment, slaughter, or bringing a clear justification. The first two invoke the bird’s damnation, while the last one promises his salvation.
فَمَكَثَ غَيْرَ بَعِيدٍ فَقالَ أَحَطْتُ بِما لَمْ تُحِطْ بِهِ وَ جِئْتُكَ مِنْ سَبَإٍ بِنَبَإٍ يَقِينٍ ٢٢
(27:22) And he tarried not long, then said: I have comprehended (aḥaṭtu, from iḥāṭah) that which you have not comprehended and I have brought you certain news (bi-nabaʾ yaqīn) from Sheba.
There are two possibilities for the pronoun “he” in “he tarried”: (1) It refers to Solomon, following the previous verses. (2) It refers to the hoopoe, in accordance with what comes next in the verse.
Here, iḥāṭah (lit. “to encompass, to surround”) means “having full knowledge of something.” “And I have brought you” is added as an explanation and exposition of “I have comprehended.” Sheba (Sabaʾ) was the capital city of Yemen at the time. Nabaʾ means “important news.” Yaqīn means “doubtless”.
The verse involves some omission and concision. The implied meaning can be elaborated as follows: Solomon—or the hoopoe—waited for a short while, then the hoopoe came and Solomon asked him about its absence and reproached it for being late. The hoopoe replied: “I have come to know what you do not know, and I have brought you important news from Sheba; news in which there is no doubt.”
According to some exegetes, the hoopoe began by saying, “I have comprehended that which you have not comprehended” in order to attract Solomon’s attention and calm his impulse.
إِنِّي وَجَدْتُ امْرَأَةً تَمْلِكُهُمْ وَ أُوتِيَتْ مِنْ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَ لَها عَرْشٌ عَظِيمٌ٢٣
(27:23) Surely I found a woman ruling over them, and she has been given of every thing, and she has a mighty throne.
The pronoun “them” refers to the people of Sheba and its environs. “She has been given of every thing” describes her vast and great kingdom. This context shows that “every thing” here means everything pertaining to a great empire, such as prudence, authority, power, vast lands, treasures, mighty armies and obedient citizens. Out of all these, the hoopoe named her mighty throne specifically.
وَجَدْتُها وَ قَوْمَها يَسْجُدُونَ لِلشَّمْسِ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ وَ زَيَّنَ لَهُمُ الشَّيْطانُ أَعْمالَهُمْ فَصَدَّهُمْ عَنِ السَّبِيلِ فَهُمْ لا يَهْتَدُونَ ٢٤
(27:24) I found her and her people adoring the sun instead of Allah, and Satan has made their deeds fair-seeming to them and thus turned them from the way, so they do not go aright.
It means: They are a group of idolaters who worship the sun.
… and Satan has made their deeds fair-seeming to them…: This sentence is added as an explanation of the first part of the verse. It also sets the ground for what is said next. “Their deeds” refer to their acts of worship to other gods besides Allah, such as prostration and other means of winning favor with their gods.
… and thus turned them from the way…: “The way” is God’s way, which is to worship Him alone. Satan turned them away from God’s way by decorating their deeds in their eyes. “The way” (al-sabīl) is mentioned without any qualification, as opposed to saying “the way of God”. This alludes to the fact that His way is the only way that intrinsically serves as a path for humankind according to their primary nature and disposition (fiṭrah). Rather, it is the only way for all things in terms of creation as a whole.
… so they do not go aright: The letter fāʾ (so, then, therefore) at the beginning of this sentence shows that this sentence is a consequence and conclusion of the previous statement. This only makes sense, because once one is turned away [from the only way], “going aright” is no longer applicable. The reader should reflect on this.
أَلاَّ يَسْجُدُوا لِلَّهِ الَّذِي يُخْرِجُ الْخَبْءَ فِي السَّماواتِ وَ الْأَرْضِ وَ يَعْلَمُ ما تُخْفُونَ وَ ما تُعْلِنُونَ ٢٥
(27:25) That they do not (allā) make obeisance to Allah, Who brings forth what is hidden (al-khabʾ) in the heavens and the earth and knows what you hide and what you make manifest.
The common recitation of the first word is allā, which is composed of an lā (meaning, “that they do not”). It serves as an exposition of “their deeds” in the previous verse. The implied meaning is: “Satan made it fair-seeming to them to not make obeisance to God.” Some exegetes have suggested that the meaning involves an omitted letter lām at the beginning that shows purpose (called lām al-taʿlīl). The implied meaning would be: “Satan made their going astray fair-seeming to them so that (li-allā) they would not make obeisance to God.”
Majmaʿ al-bayān says:
Al-khabʾ means al-makhbūʾ, which is “something that has been encompassed by something else, such that it cannot be perceived.” Khabʾ is a verbal noun that serves as an adjective [in this verse]. It is used as khabaʾtuhu, akhbaʾuhu, khabʾan. It is used when God gives existence to something, because things are initially “hidden” in non-existence, then God He brings them forth to existence.
Therefore, what is said here—“Who brings forth what is hidden in the heavens and the earth”—is a metaphorical expression. It is as if things are hidden and covered under layers of non-existence, then God brings them out into existence one after another. Referring to the existentiation of things after their non-existence as “bringing forth the hidden” is very close to using the word fiṭr for God’s creation of the heavens and the earth. Fiṭr means to split. It is as if He splits non-existence and brings out things from it. Thus He is called al-Fāṭir.
It is also possible to interpret this sentence literally, not metaphorically, but that would need an explanation that is beyond the scope of the current work. Some exegetes have said that khabʾ means “the unseen” (ghayb), and “bringing it forth” means “knowing about it.” The weakness of this interpretation should be clear.
… and knows what you hide (tukhfūna) and what you make manifest (tuʿlinūna): Since the verbs tukhfūna and tuʿlinūna start with the letter tāʾ, they are in the second person. That is: “He knows your secrets and what you manifest.” However, in most of the [seven] recitations, the verbs are recorded as yukhfūna and yuʿlinūna, beginning with the letter yāʾ, which makes them third person. This is preferable in terms of meaning.
The gist of the verse’s argument is: They prostrate to the sun instead of God as a sign of reverence. However, their attraction to the sun is only because of the benefits that God has placed in it for the globe. This is how God has set up the universe and directs its affairs. On the other hand, God is the One Who has brought forth all things from non-existence to existence, from the unseen to the manifest, and has set in place this ordered system of the universe—part of which is the creation and direction of the sun. Hence, it is more befitting to revere God; He is worthier of prostration [than the sun or any other being]. Furthermore, it does not make sense to worship something that cannot realize it is being worshiped, such as the sun. On the other hand, God knows what they hide and what they disclose. Thus, God alone is to be prostrated to and revered, not anything or anyone else.
The above explanation clarifies how this verse connects to the next verse: Allah, there is no god but He… ().
اللَّهُ لا إِلهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ رَبُّ الْعَرْشِ الْعَظِيمِ ٢٦
(27:26) Allah, there is no god but He: He is the Lord of the Mighty Throne.
The speaker, in this verse, is still the hoopoe. Here it explicitly states the conclusion that was implicit in its previous explanation. It proclaims the truth against their false belief by stating two points in sequence: (1) First, it said, “there is no god but He,” indicating monotheism in worship. (2) Then it added, “the Lord of the Mighty Throne,” indicating that God is the One Who directs all affairs. The “throne” of a king refers to the king’s central position of controlling all affairs and issuing rules for his entire kingdom.
There is a further parallel between the hoopoe’s description of God as “the Lord of the Mighty Throne” and its description of the Queen of Sheba as “and she has a mighty throne” (). Perhaps the hoopoe’s description [about the Queen’s throne being “mighty”] was the cause—or one of the catalysts—that induced Solomon to ask for her throne to be brought to him in order to humble every glory before the magnificence of his Lord.
قالَ سَنَنْظُرُ أَ صَدَقْتَ أَمْ كُنْتَ مِنَ الْكاذِبِينَ ٢٧
(27:27) He said: We will see whether you have told the truth or whether you are of the liars.
The pronoun “he” refers to Solomon. He deferred judgment about the hoopoe to the future. Solomon did not confirm the hoopoe’s claim because there was no evidence for it, nor did he deny it because there was no reason to deny it. Instead, he told the hoopoe that he shall test and examine what it said.
اذْهَبْ بِكِتابِي هذا فَأَلْقِهْ إِلَيْهِمْ ثُمَّ تَوَلَّ عَنْهُمْ فَانْظُرْ ما ذا يَرْجِعُونَ٢٨
(27:28) Take this letter of mine and cast it (fa-alqih) unto them, then turn away from them and see what (answer) they return.
This is an account of what Solomon told the hoopoe. It implies that Solomon wrote a letter and then gave these instructions to the hoopoe:
Take this letter of mine and cast it unto them: referring to the Queen of Sheba and her commanders.
… then turn away from them…: That is, stay at a distance from them where you can observe them.
… and see what (answer) they return: That is, observe what they tell each other when they discuss the letter.
The letter hāʾ at the end of fa-alqih is paused at in all recitations, whether the recitation is continued or stopped at it. It is called hāʾ al-sakt (lit. “the hāʾ of pause”). Some exegetes have said that Solomon’s instructions—“then turn away from them and see what (answer) they return”—are not mentioned in sequence in the verse. What is really meant is: “See what answer they provide, then return from them.” However, the implausibility of this view should be clear.
قالَتْ يا أَيُّهَا الْمَلَأُ إِنِّي أُلْقِيَ إِلَيَّ كِتابٌ كَرِيمٌ ٢٩ إِنَّهُ مِنْ سُلَيْمانَ وَ إِنَّهُ بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ ٣٠
(27:29-30) She said: O chief! Surely an honorable letter has been delivered to me. It is from Solomon, and it is in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
These verses have an implied omission. The implied meaning is: So the hoopoe received the letter, took it to the Queen of Sheba, and cast it down to her once he arrived. She picked it up, read it, and then told the chiefs and elites among her people, “O chiefs….”
She said: O chiefs! Surely an honorable letter has been delivered to me: This verse tells us how she informed her chief commanders about the letter, how the letter reached her, and the content of the letter. She glorified the letter by describing it as karīm (honorable, noble, valuable).
It is from Solomon, and it is in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful: Apparently, this verse serves to explain and justify why the letter was honorable. She called it honorable because: (1) It is from Solomon; and (2) it is in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. She was well aware of Solomon’s dominion and the great kingdom and wonderful majesty that he was given, as God narrates from her later: And we were given the knowledge before it, and we were submissive ().
… and it is in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful: All idolaters, including sun-worshipers, believed in God as the Lord of the lords, although they did not worship Him. Sun-worshipers were a branch of the Sabeans, who glorified God and His attributes, but they interpreted God’s attributes as negative attributes that point to His purity from imperfections. For instance, they interpreted God’s knowledge, power, life and mercy as the lack of ignorance, weakness, death and cruelty in Him.
Given these beliefs, it only makes sense that she found the letter to be honorable, because: it is in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. Therefore, this sentence was part of her explanation for why the letter was honorable, just like her previous sentence in the verse, where she says that the letter is honorable because it is from Solomon the Great. Then, she describes the actual content of the letter in the next verse: Saying (an): Exalt not yourselves against me and come to me in submission (), where the particle an (lit. “that”) is descriptive of the letter.
Here is a strange interpretation offered by a number of exegetes: What she says here—“It is from Solomon” ()—is a new statement, not a continuation of the previous thread. She said this as an answer to an implied question, as if they had asked: “From whom is this letter? And what is in it?” She answered the first question by saying, “It is from Solomon,” which means that the next part of the verse (and it is in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful) answers the second implied question, where she starts describing the text of the letter. This means that the letter’s content is: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. [An] exalt not yourselves against me and come to me in submission.
The problem with the above interpretation is that the particle an at the beginning of the next verse [] would be redundant and pointless. To explain this, some exegetes have said that the particle serves to turn the verb that follows it into an infinitive (called an maṣdariyyah), and the word lā (lit. “not”) does not show a prohibition, but a negation. This, however, is an implausible possibility, as we shall discuss below.
Here are some suggested explanations by the exegetes for why the letter was honorable:
It was honorable because it was sealed. There is a narration which says, “To honor a letter is to seal it.” In fact, some exegetes have claimed that a letter’s honor actually means sealing it, such that when one seals a letter he says, “I have honored the letter; now it is honorable.”
It was honorable because of its good hand-writing and elegant expression.
It was honorable because it reached her in an abnormal way.
She called it honorable because she thought that it was a heavenly letter, since it was cast upon her by a bird.
And thus goes the list of such explanations. The reader will agree that these are unsatisfying speculations. Apparently the root cause of their error is in how they have interpreted the word innahu (lit. “it is”) in: It is (innahu) in the name of Allah (). They have interpreted innahu as marking the very text of the letter, whereby she quotes the letter’s content verbatim, until “…in submission” (). This is contrary to what we said above—that the entire verse (It is from Solomon, and it is in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful) is meant to explain and justify the honorability of the letter. What shows the implausibility of their interpretation is that, in its overt meaning, the particle an (that, saying) in the next verse—That (an): exalt not yourselves against me ()—shows that she is describing the gist of the letter and paraphrasing its message. The particle an does not suggest direct quotation.
Thus, the two verses together are essentially saying: “This letter begins with the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful; and its purport is that he [Solomon] prohibits us from being arrogant before him, and commands us to submit to him.” This interpretation is free from any problem or contradiction.
أَلاَّ تَعْلُوا عَلَيَّ وَ أْتُونِي مُسْلِمِينَ ٣١
(27:31) Saying (an): Exalt not yourselves against me and come to me in submission.
As mentioned above, the particle an (that, saying) is mufassirah (descriptive, explanatory). It interprets the message of Solomon’s letter.
Some exegetes have suggested that the particle is maṣdariyyah (that is, it turns the verb that follows it into an infinitive) and the particle lā (lit. “not”) is negative (nāfiyah). So the verse is saying: “Your lack of exaltation against me.” This is an implausible interpretation because of two problems: (1) It requires a subject or predicate which has been omitted from the verse, while there is no need to assume so. (2) It means that the first half of the verse is an indicative or declarative statement (ikhbār), while the second half—“and come to me”—is an imperative one (inshāʾ). However, it is ungrammatical to join an imperative statement to a declarative one by the conjunction “and.”
… Exalt not yourselves against me…: That is, do not be haughty against me.
… and come to me in submission (muslimīn): What is meant here is the literal meaning of islām, which is submission and obedience. This is confirmed by his first order: Exalt not yourselves against me. It does not mean Islam in the technical [albeit general] sense, which is to believe in God. If the technical meaning of īmān (belief, faith) were intended here, then it would have been more befitting to say: “Exalt not yourselves against God.” Nevertheless, coming to Solomon and being submissive to him necessitates believing in God, as can be deduced from what the hoopoe said [about their lack of obeisance to God] and the verses that follow.
Solomon was certainly a prophet, and his duty was to invite people to faith. Yet, this does not contradict his command to submit to him, because he was also a king. Moreover, his call to unconditional submission to him [as opposed to submission (islām) in the technical sense] necessitated that they would also believe in God, as we said above. Indeed, the Queen’s submission to Solomon led to her submission to God, as God narrates from her: I submit with Solomon to Allah, the Lord of the worlds ().
قالَتْ يا أَيُّهَا الْمَلَأُ أَفْتُونِي فِي أَمْرِي ما كُنْتُ قاطِعَةً أَمْراً حَتَّى تَشْهَدُونِ٣٢
(27:32) She said: O chiefs! Advise me (aftūnī, from iftāʾ) respecting my affair: I never decide (qāṭiʿah, from qaṭʿ) an affair until you are in my presence (tashhadūna, from shahādah).
Iftāʾ is “to declare a fatwa” (that is, opinion). To qaṭʿ an affair is “to make a firm decision about it.” Shahādah means ḥuḍūr (presence). In this verse, the Queen asks for the advice of her chiefs. She says: “Give me advice concerning this matter that I have come across—that is, what is mentioned in Solomon’s letter. I ask for your advice because I have never ruled autocratically. Rather, I always make decisions and decrees through your consultation and in your presence.”
This verse reports a second part of her speech to her chiefs. The first part was where she told them about Solomon’s letter, how it reached her, and what was in it [].
قالُوا نَحْنُ أُولُوا قُوَّةٍ وَ أُولُوا بَأْسٍ شَدِيدٍ وَ الْأَمْرُ إِلَيْكِ فَانْظُرِي ما ذا تَأْمُرِينَ ٣٣
(27:33) They said: We are possessors of strength (quwwah) and possessors of mighty prowess (baʾs), and the command is yours, therefore see what you will command.
Quwwah is “what strengthens people in achieving their objectives.” Here it means “army” since an army is a source of strength in fighting and driving away enemies. Baʾs means “ferocity in action.” Here it means “courage, bravery.”
This verse narrates the answer of her chiefs to her, where they first tell her what would cheer her soul and calm her worry, and then they turn the decision back to herself. They told her: “Cheer up and do not be upset, for we have such strength and might that we do not fear any enemy, even if the enemy is Solomon. Furthermore, the matter is up to you; command as you wish and we will obey you.”
قالَتْ إِنَّ الْمُلُوكَ إِذا دَخَلُوا قَرْيَةً أَفْسَدُوها وَ جَعَلُوا أَعِزَّةَ أَهْلِها أَذِلَّةً وَ كَذلِكَ يَفْعَلُونَ ٣٤
(27:34) She said: Surely kings, when they enter a town, ruin it (afsadūhā, from ifsād) and make the noblest of its people abased, and thus they (always) do.
What is meant by ifsād of a town is “to destroy it, burn it and demolish its buildings.” What is meant by “abasing its noblest people” is “to disgrace and dishonor them by killing, capturing, exiling, deporting, and tyrannizing.”
Based on this verse and the next, she decided to investigate Solomon’s case further by sending someone to examine his state, see the signs of his prophethood and kingdom, and then bring back the news. Then she would decide between war or peace.
Apparently her chiefs were inclined to war because they began by speaking of strength and mighty prowess. That is why she began by first criticizing war implicitly, and then she explicitly expressed her decision. She said: Surely kings, when they enter a town, ruin it…. That is: “War is bound to end in the victory of one of the two sides, and that entails the destruction of the towns and the abasement of its noblest people. Therefore, when the enemy is mighty and powerful, it is not prudent to proceed with war as long as it is possible to make peace and conciliation, unless there is no other choice. My view, instead, is to send them a gift and then wait and see what news my messengers bring back. At that point I will make up my mind between either war or peace.” Hence, what she says in the first verse (Surely kings, when they enter a town, ruin it…) sets the stage for what comes next (And surely I am going to send a present to them, and shall wait to see…).
… and make the noblest of its people abased…: She used the adjective “abased” (adhillah) instead of the verb “abase.” Her expression is more powerful and emphatic than other alternatives such as, “they abase the noblest of its people” (istadhallū aʿizzatahā). What her statement shows is not only the occurrence of abasement [as an event which is indicated by a verb], but also being drenched in abasement [as one’s quality which is indicated by an adjective].
… and thus they (always) do: Whereas the first part of the verse—“they ruin it and make the noblest of its people abased”—indicates the initial occurrence of ruin and abasement, this last bit describes its continuation and persistence. It has been said that this part of the verse is a statement by God, not the continuation of the Queen of Sheba’s speech. However, this view is not plausible because the verse bears no evidence to show that God is interjecting here to confirm her statement.
وَ إِنِّي مُرْسِلَةٌ إِلَيْهِمْ بِهَدِيَّةٍ فَناظِرَةٌ بِمَ يَرْجِعُ الْمُرْسَلُونَ ٣٥
(27:35) And surely I am going to send a present to them, and shall wait to see what (answer) do the messengers bring back.
The plural pronoun “them”—in “to them”—refers to Solomon. This is an expression of her majestic pride and haughtiness, whereby she refrained from mentioning Solomon’s name explicitly. Instead, she ascribed the matter to him and those around him in plural. This expression also shows that what Solomon does is by the hands of his assistants, hosts and citizens.
… and shall wait to see what (answer) do the messengers bring back: That is: “I shall wait, and then I will act according to the circumstances.” As we said above, this was the opinion of the Queen of Sheba. The plural form of “messengers” shows that the gifts were sent by a group of her people. However, this group was headed by a single individual, because Solomon addresses them in the second person singular: irjiʿ ilayhim (“go back to them”; ).
فَلَمَّا جاءَ سُلَيْمانَ قالَ أَ تُمِدُّونَنِ بِمالٍ فَما آتانِيَ اللَّهُ خَيْرٌ مِمَّا آتاكُمْ بَلْ أَنْتُمْ بِهَدِيَّتِكُمْ تَفْرَحُونَ ٣٦
(27:36) So when he came (jāʾa) to Solomon, he said: What? Will you help me with wealth? But what Allah has given me is better than what He has given you. Nay, you are exultant because of your present.
The subject of jāʾa [that is, “it” or “he”] refers to either the gifts, or the messenger that carried the gifts.
… What? Will you help me with wealth?...: This is a rhetorical question that expresses a rebuke. It is addressed in the second person [plural] to the messenger, but also refers to those back in Sheba. This is an example of using the second person when the intended audience consists of both present and absent individuals. He rebukes them collectively without specifying the queen, just like the queen said, “And surely I am going to send a present to them” () without specifying Solomon, as discussed above.
Some exegetes have mentioned the possibility that his address was only directed at the messengers, and it is plural because they were a group. This, however, is not correct because the “help” was not from the messengers but from the sender of the messengers. Therefore, the rebuke cannot be addressed to them alone. “Wealth” (mālin) is mentioned in the indefinite form (nakirah) to indicate its insignificance and pettiness.
… what Allah has given me…: This refers to his kingdom and prophethood.
The implied meaning is: Do you offer me some petty wealth that is worthless to me compared to what God has given me? Indeed, the prophethood, kingdom and wealth that God has given me are better than what He has given you.
… Nay, you are exultant because of your present: After rebuking them for offering him wealth, Solomon moves on to rebuke them for taking pride in their present. That is: Your offering of wealth that is worthless to me compared to what God has given me is evil, and your exultation due to having a high regard for it and being fascinated by it is even more reprehensible.
Some have said: “Your present” means “what is presented to you” [not “what you are presenting to me”]. The meaning would be: Rather, you rejoice over gifts that are presented to you because you love abundant wealth. But I do not care about worldly wealth.
However, the unlikelihood of this interpretation is evident.
ارْجِعْ إِلَيْهِمْ فَلَنَأْتِيَنَّهُمْ بِجُنُودٍ لا قِبَلَ لَهُمْ بِها وَ لَنُخْرِجَنَّهُمْ مِنْها أَذِلَّةً وَ هُمْ صاغِرُونَ ٣٧
(27:37) Go back to them, then we will most certainly come to them (fa-la-naʾtiyannahum) with hosts which they shall have no power (qibal) to oppose there (bihā), and we will most certainly expel them (la-nukhrijannahum) therefrom in abasement, and they shall be in a state of ignominy.
The person being spoken to is the head of the messengers, and the plural pronouns refer to the Queen of Sheba and her people. Qibal means ṭāqah (ability, power, resistance). The pronoun in bihā (translated as “there”) refers to Sheba. The letter lām at the beginning of la-naʾtiyannahum and la-nukhrijannahum indicates a vow [for emphasis; that is, “most certainly”].
… and they shall be in a state of ignominy: This sentence emphasizes what was said before in the verse.
Rather than following Solomon’s order—“come to me in submission” ()—they sent a present, which was a sign of their refusal to submit. Therefore, he assumed that they were going to resist. That is why he threatened them by dispatching hosts which they would not be able to resist. For the same reason, Solomon did not talk about their submission anymore. Instead, after saying, “Go back to them,” he immediately continued to say, “then we will most certainly come to them.” In other words, he did not say, “Go back to them, and if they do not come to me in submission, then we will most certainly come to them,” even though that is what his statement reduces to. He would only dispatch armies and expel them from Sheba in abasement if they continued to resist.
It is evident from the theme and context of the verse that he did not accept their present, but returned it to them.
قالَ يا أَيُّهَا الْمَلَؤُا أَيُّكُمْ يَأْتِينِي بِعَرْشِها قَبْلَ أَنْ يَأْتُونِي مُسْلِمِينَ ٣٨
(27:38) He said: O chiefs! Which of you can bring to me her throne before they come to me in submission?
This is what Solomon said after rejecting their gift and sending back the messengers. He informed his chiefs that they would soon come to him in submission. He wanted her throne to be brought to him before the arrival of the queen and her people. This would be an evident sign of the great power that his Lord had bestowed upon him, and a clear miracle of his prophethood. This way they would submit to God, and indeed they did so, as the following verses show.
قالَ عِفْرِيتٌ مِنَ الْجِنِّ أَنَا آتِيكَ بِهِ قَبْلَ أَنْ تَقُومَ مِنْ مَقامِكَ وَ إِنِّي عَلَيْهِ لَقَوِيٌّ أَمِينٌ ٣٩
(27:39) An audacious (ʿifrīt) jinn said: I will bring it to you (ātīka bihi) before you rise up from your place; and most surely I am strong (and) trusty over it.
ʿIfrīt has been defined as “a wicked and evil miscreant.” Ātī (in ātīka bihi) is ism fāʿil (a noun for subject, active participial noun; that is, “bringer”). It could also be the present tense of the verb ityān (that is, “I will bring”). The first meaning is more compatible with the context because it shows that he is an active doer of this task. Moreover, it is more appropriate given the addition of “and most surely I am strong…,” which is also a nominal sentence (jumlah ismiyyah). This is what the exegetes have said.
… and most surely I am strong (and) trusty over it: The pronoun “it” in “over it” (ʿalayhi) refers to the act of bringing. That is: I am certainly capable of bringing her throne. Her throne is neither heavy for me to lift, nor exhausting for me to carry. I am also trustworthy and will not be disloyal to you in this matter.
قالَ الَّذِي عِنْدَهُ عِلْمٌ مِنَ الْكِتابِ أَنَا آتِيكَ بِهِ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَرْتَدَّ إِلَيْكَ طَرْفُكَ فَلَمَّا رَآهُ مُسْتَقِرًّا عِنْدَهُ قالَ هذا مِنْ فَضْلِ رَبِّي لِيَبْلُوَنِي أَ أَشْكُرُ أَمْ أَكْفُرُ وَ مَنْ شَكَرَ فَإِنَّما يَشْكُرُ لِنَفْسِهِ وَ مَنْ كَفَرَ فَإِنَّ رَبِّي غَنِيٌّ كَرِيمٌ ٤٠
(27:40) One who had a knowledge of the Book said: I will bring it to you before your glance returns to you. Then when he saw it settled beside him, he said: This is of the grace of my Lord that He may try me whether I am grateful or ungrateful; and whoever is grateful, he is grateful only for his own soul, and whoever is ungrateful, then surely my Lord is Self-sufficient, Honored.
The person mentioned in this verse was a human being because he is contrasted with a jinn. Narrations from the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt say that he was Āṣif b. Barkhiyā (Asaph son of Berachiah), the vizier and successor of Solomon. Other suggested views are:
He was Khiḍr.
He was a man who possessed the Greatest Name of God: a name that if God is called by it, He will respond.
It was Gabriel.
It was Solomon himself.
However, there is no evidence supporting these views. Whoever the person was, this verse follows the previous verse without a conjunction to show the importance of this scholar who brought the queen’s throne to Solomon in less than the blink of an eye. The verse also shows a high regard for his knowledge by referring to it in the indefinite form (nakirah), as it says “a knowledge of the Book,” meaning some knowledge that cannot be described in words.
What is meant by “the Book”—as the source of such wonderful knowledge—is either the genus of heavenly books [that is, scriptures] or the Guarded Tablet (al-lawḥ al-maḥfūẓ). The knowledge that this scholar had from that Book enabled him to achieve that objective [of transporting the throne in such a short time]. The exegetes have said that he knew God’s Greatest Name that when He is called by it He answers. Some exegetes have suggested the following possibilities for this Greatest Name:
Al-Ḥayy al-Qayyūm (the Living, the Upright).
Dhū al-Jalāl wa al-Ikrām (Possessor of Majesty and Nobility).
Allāh al-Raḥman (Allah, the All-Beneficent).
Ahiyan Sharāhiyan in Hebrew.
Some have said that he made the following supplication: “O our God and the God of everything! Thou art the One God; there is no god but Thee! Bring her throne to me!” Others have mentioned other formulas.
As we explained under verse , it is impossible for the Greatest Name—which can influence and manipulate everything—to be either a verbal formula or a mental concept that is indicated by words. If there is a name with such capacity or impact, then it would be a real external name that is matched in a way by the meaning of the word. That external reality is God’s name; the word that indicates it is “the name of the name” (ism al-ism).
In this verse, there is no indication of this name that the exegetes have mentioned. What the verse says is that he possessed a knowledge of the Book and that he said, “I will bring it to you.” Meanwhile, we know that such action is really God’s action. Therefore, we can conclude that he had such knowledge of God and such a connection with Him, that whenever he turned his attention to his Lord and asked Him for something, his request would certainly be granted. Or to be more accurate, his request would certainly be granted if God willed it.
Based on the above, it should also be clear that this knowledge was not intellectual knowledge acquirable by learning.
… I will bring it to you before your glance (ṭarfuka) returns (yartadda, from radd and irtdiād) to you…: It has been said that ṭarf means “look” (laḥẓ) or “glance” (naẓar). The returning of ṭarf is when the image of the object that is being sighted reaches the viewer and becomes an object of one’s knowledge. Therefore, the meaning is: I will bring it to you in less than the time between looking at something and knowing about it.
One exegete has said: Ṭarf is to open the eyes, and the irtidād of ṭarf is to close them. Since this is a natural and involuntary act, the verse has used the verb in the form irtidād instead of radd. It says yartadda ilayka, not yarudda ilayka.
The mistake of this exegete is that blinking, like breathing, is a voluntary human act; however, both of them are directed by the human nature. That is why their occurrence does not require one to think beforehand, as opposed to acts such as eating and drinking. A voluntary act is one that is done by the human will and volition (irādah), and this is not limited to acts that are preceded by thought and reflection. What made this exegete fall into this mistake was his presumption that an act out of will is the same as an act out of thinking. Perhaps the reason why the verse has used irtidād instead of radd is that since blinking does not hinge on thinking, it is as if it occurs on its own and without the person’s will.
This sentence—“I will bring it to you before your glance returns to you”—is addressed to Solomon, because he was the one who asked for the throne to be brought to him. Therefore, he is the one who is meant to find the throne before him.
Some exegetes have said: The sentence is addressed to the audacious jinn who said: I will bring it to you before you rise up from your place (). The speaker—that is, “one who had a knowledge of the Book”—was Solomon. He made this statement to show the merit of prophethood, and that the One Who enabled him to do this by teaching him knowledge of the Book is greater than the power in which the audacious jinn took pride. Thus the meaning is: When the audacious jinn said what he said, Solomon told him, “I will bring the throne to you before your glance returns to you.”
The author of al-Tafsīr al-kabīr [that is, al-Rāzī] has insisted on this view, and has mentioned several arguments in support of it. However, they are all weak arguments, and the whole interpretation does not comply with the theme and context of the verse, as opposed to our interpretation above.
… Then when he saw it settled beside him, he said: This is of the grace of my Lord that He may try me whether I am grateful or ungrateful…: That is: when Solomon saw the throne settled by him, he said, “This”—the appearance of the throne and its placement before me in less than the blink of an eye—“is of the grace of my Lord”—not because of my own merit or desert—“that He may try me”—that He may test me—“whether I am grateful or ungrateful”—toward His bounty and blessing.
… And whoever is grateful, he is grateful only for his own soul…: That is, the benefit of his gratitude returns to himself no to my Lord.
… and whoever is ungrateful (kafara, from kufr), then surely my Lord is Self-sufficient, Honored: The word kufr here means “ungratefulness” [not disbelief]. The second half of the verse [“and whoever is grateful…”] emphasizes the first half which describes this phenomenon as a grace of God.
Some exegetes have said that the demonstrative “this” [in “This is of the grace of my Lord”] refers to the ability to bring the throne [as opposed to the appearance of the throne], whether directly by himself, or indirectly through means and intermediaries.
The problem with this interpretation is that the expression “then when he saw it settled beside him” suggests that his praise pertained to the state of seeing, and what he saw was the presence of the throne before him, not the ability to bring it, which had existed prior to that.
This verse contains an implied omission. What is implied is: “Solomon gave him permission to bring the throne as he had said, and he did so. Then when he saw it settled beside him…” The omission of the implied part serves to indicate the speed of his action, as if there were no time lag between his claim about bringing the throne (as he said) and seeing it before him.
قالَ نَكِّرُوا لَها عَرْشَها نَنْظُرْ أَ تَهْتَدِي أَمْ تَكُونُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ لا يَهْتَدُونَ٤١
(27:41) He said: Alter (nakkirū, from tankīr) her throne for her; we will see whether she follows the right way or is of those who do not go aright.
Al-Mufradāt says:
Tankīr is to change something so that it cannot be recognized. God says: He said: Alter her throne for her (). Taʿrīf [the opposite of tankīr] to alter something so that it is recognized.
The context suggests that Solomon said this when the Queen of Sheba and her chiefs had come to him and were about to meet him. His purpose was to test their intellect, just as his purpose in bringing the throne was to show her an evident sign of his prophethood. That is why he ordered the throne to be altered, and justified it by: we will see whether she follows the right way…. The meaning of the verse is clear.
فَلَمَّا جاءَتْ قِيلَ أَ هكَذا عَرْشُكِ قالَتْ كَأَنَّهُ هُوَ وَ أُوتِينَا الْعِلْمَ مِنْ قَبْلِها وَ كُنَّا مُسْلِمِينَ ٤٢
(27:42) So when she came, it was said: Is your throne like this? She said: It is as it were the same, and we were given the knowledge before it, and we were submissive.
That is, when the queen came to Solomon, she was asked on behalf of Solomon, “Is your throne like this?” This question was meant for testing [not for learning].
She was not asked “Is this your throne?” but “Is this similar to your throne?” in order to make the matter more ambiguous to her. In other words, she was asked about the similarity between her throne and the throne that was shown to her in terms of its shape and characteristics. This manner of questioning is a way of obfuscating (tankīr).
… She said: It is as it were the same…: What she meant was, “It is the same,” but she said this in the form of analogy and comparison [by saying ka-anna, “as it were”] to avoid jumping to a conclusion without solid grounds. It is common to express initial beliefs that yet have to be verified in the form of likening and comparison [by using “as if” or “like”].
… and we were given the knowledge before it, and we were submissive: There are two possibilities for the pronoun “it” in “before it”: (1) It refers to the bringing of the throne [as an external event]. (2) It refers to the state of seeing the throne after it had been brought [as a mental state and condition]. The context shows that this sentence is the continuation of the queen’s speech. When she saw the throne and was asked about it, she realized that this was an allusion to the extraordinary power that God had bestowed upon Solomon. Thus she answered, “and we were given the knowledge before it…,” meaning that there is no need for such an allusion or reminder, because we already knew about his power before the occurrence of this miracle—or before our current condition.
… and we were submissive: That is, we were obedient to Solomon.
Here are some other views for the speaker of “and we were given the knowledge…”:
(1) These are Solomon’s words.
(2) They are the words of Solomon’s people.
(3) They are the words of the queen, but she meant that she already knew that the throne had been brought there.
However, all of these views are implausible.
وَ صَدَّها ما كانَتْ تَعْبُدُ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ إِنَّها كانَتْ مِنْ قَوْمٍ كافِرِينَ ٤٣
(27:43) And what she worshiped besides Allah prevented her (ṣaddahā), surely she was of an unbelieving people.
Ṣadd means “to prevent, to turn away.” Here, it means being prevented from submitting to God. She submits later when she is ordered to enter the palace, whereby she testifies: I submit with Solomon to Allah, the Lord of the worlds (). What she said in the previous verse—that “we were submissive” ()—pertains to her submission and obedience to Solomon [not to God].
This is what can be inferred from the theme and context of the verses. Exegetes have suggested other meanings for the verse, which we shall skip.
… surely she was of an unbelieving people: This sentence serves to explain and justify the first part of the verse. The implied meaning is: What she worshiped besides God—that is, the sun, as mentioned in the hoopoe’s report []—prevented her from submitting to God, and the reason for this was that she was from an unbelieving people. Thus she followed them in their unbelief.
قِيلَ لَهَا ادْخُلِي الصَّرْحَ فَلَمَّا رَأَتْهُ حَسِبَتْهُ لُجَّةً وَ كَشَفَتْ عَنْ ساقَيْها قالَ إِنَّهُ صَرْحٌ مُمَرَّدٌ مِنْ قَوارِيرَ قالَتْ رَبِّ إِنِّي ظَلَمْتُ نَفْسِي وَ أَسْلَمْتُ مَعَ سُلَيْمانَ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعالَمِينَ ٤٤
(27:44) It was said to her: Enter the palace (al-ṣarḥ). But when she saw it she deemed it to be a great expanse of water (lujjah), and bared her legs. He said: Surely it is a palace made smooth (mumarrad) with glass (qawārīr). She said: My Lord! Surely I have been unjust to myself, and I submit with Solomon to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.
There are three meanings for ṣarḥ: (1) It means qaṣr (palace, castle). (2) It means any building that is higher than the other buildings and overlooks them. (3) It means a wide and unroofed area. Lujjah means “a great amount of water.” Mumarrad means “that which has been smoothened and refined.” Qawārīr means “glass.”
It was said to her: Enter the palace…: Apparently, the speaker of these words was one of Solomon’s servants, while Solomon was also there. It is common that when kings and leaders of a nation visit their counterparts in another country, they are ushered in by the host’s retinue [but not directly by the host].
But when she saw it she deemed it to be a great expanse of water, and bared her legs…: That is, when she saw the palace, she thought that it was an expanse of water because it was covered by glass which was so clear that it looked like water. She bared her feet by lifting up her dress so that the bottom of her dress would not get wet.
… He said: Surely it is a palace made smooth with glass…: The speaker here is Solomon. He informed her that it was not an expanse of water, but it was a palace made smooth with glass. When she saw the magnificence of Solomon’s kingdom—and she had already seen the hoopoe, her gifts returned, and her throne brought there—she was left with no doubt that these were signs of his prophethood, not a scheme or plan. At that point she said: My Lord! Surely I have been unjust to myself….
… She said: My Lord! Surely I have been unjust to myself, and I submit with Solomon to Allah, the Lord of the worlds: She first took recourse to her Lord by acknowledging that she had wronged herself for not serving God from the beginning, or for not converting sooner, when she had seen the above signs. Then she testified that she submits to God with Solomon.
… and I submit with Solomon to Allah, the Lord of the worlds: Here there is a shift from the second person (speaking to God, swt) to the third person (not speaking to God). This shows a shift from an overall expression of belief in God—where she said, “My Lord! Surely I have been unjust to myself”—to an explicit expression of monotheism (tawḥīd). She testified that her submission to God is “with Solomon,” meaning the same kind of submission as Solomon’s, which was [pure] monotheism. She then emphasized this explicit expression of her monotheism by describing God as “the Lord of the worlds,” meaning that there is no lord other than Him for any being in any realm of existence. This is God’s unity in Lordship, which necessitates His unity in worship, which is not held by polytheists.
Discourse
The discussion “The Story of Prophet Solomon” appears here in the printed volume. Read it in the Al-Mizan App.
Narrations About his Story
The narrations about his story, especially the story of the hoopoe and his following encounter with the Queen of Sheba, are mostly peculiar accounts, the like of which is rarely found even in fictitious tales. A sound intellect cannot accept them; they are falsified by certain history; and most of them are exaggerations narrated by the likes of Kaʿb [al-Aḥbār] and Wahab [b. Munabbih].
They have taken the exaggeration to the point where they have narrated that he ruled over the entire earth for 700 years; all humankind, jinn, wild animals and birds were his hosts; 600,000 chairs were placed in his court where thousands of prophets and hundreds of thousands of rulers from men and jinn used to sit.
Moreover, they have said that the mother of the Queen of Sheba was a jinn, and the queen’s feet were hooved like the hoofs of a donkey. That is why she used to cover her feet from the sight of others, until she unveiled them when she wanted to enter the palace, and that was when her secret was disclosed. Her majesty was such that she had 400 kings under her supervision, each ruling over a city with an army of 400,000. She had 300 viziers who used to govern her kingdom, and she had 12,000 generals who headed an army of 12,000 soldiers each. And on it goes with other strange reports. We can only count these as inauthentic pre-Islamic narrations that should be dismissed.
Examining Narrations
When Faṭimah learnt that Abū Bakr had decided to take Fadak away from her, she went to him and said: O Abū Quhāfa! Is it in the Book of God that you shall inherit from your father but I shall not inherit from mine? Indeed you have come up with a strange thing (). Do you deliberately abandon the Book of God and fling it behind your backs? For it says: And Solomon inherited from David ()….
Concerning the verb yūzaʿūna in the verse, “And they were formed into groups (yūzaʿūna)” () Imam al-Bāqir said: [It means] those in the front were withheld to be joined by those in the back.
Imam ʿAlī said in a hadith: In some dialects, nāẓirah means muntaẓirah (awaiting). Have you not heard the verse: And I shall wait to see (fa-nāẓirah) what (answer) the messengers bring back ()?
Imam al-Bāqir said: The Greatest Name of God is composed of 73 letters. Asaph possessed only one of its letters. By uttering it, he caused the land between him and the throne of Bilqīs to sink. He picked up the throne with his hand and then the land returned to its original state. He did all that faster than the blink of an eye. However, 72 of those letters are with us [Ahl al-Bayt], and one letter is exclusively held by God in His knowledge of the unseen. There is no movement or power save by God, the Almighty, the Magnificent.
Author’s comment: The same idea has been narrated from Imam al-Ṣādiq. It has also been narrated in al-Kāfī, on the authority of Jābir, from Imam al-Bāqir, and on the authority of al-Nawfalī, from Imam al-Hādī.
The Imam’s statement that the Greatest Name has so many letters does not contradict what we said before—that the Name is not verbal—because the very tone and context of this statement shows that what is meant by “letter” here is not verbal. The Imam has used this term because people’s impression of “name” is a noun consisting of vocalized letters.
- Concerning “before your glance returns to you” () Majmaʿ al-bayān says: It means that the earth was rolled up for him. This is narrated from Imam al-Ṣādiq.
Author’s comment: The rolling (ṭayy) of the earth does not contradict the sinking (khasf) of the earth mentioned in the previous narration. Majmaʿ al-bayān has mentioned five other interpretations for the verse: (a) The angels brought the throne to him [Solomon]. (b) The wind brought it. (c) God created a sequence of movements in it. (d) It suddenly disappeared from its place, and reappeared in front of Solomon. (e) God annihilated it where it was initially, and recreated it before Solomon.
Some exegetes have suggested another possibility: Existence is constantly renewed in beings, every moment similar to their previous existence. God effused existence upon Sheba’s throne in the previous moment [while it was in Sheba], then the next moment He effused existence upon it in front of Solomon.
However, some of the above interpretations are rationally impossible—such as the fifth one—and for some of them there is no evidence—like the rest.
- Once Yaḥyā b. Aktham met Mūsā b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Mūsā [that is, Imam al-Jawād’s son]. Then Yaḥyā asked him some questions to Mūsā. Mūsā says: Later I went to my brother ʿAlī b. Muḥammad, where he admonished me and raised my awareness about his authority. I told him, “My I be sacrificed for you! The son of Aktham has asked me to issue rulings and make judgments concerning some questions.”
The Imam smiled and said, “Did you do so?” I said, “No.”
“Why not?” he asked. “Because I did not have the knowledge,” I answered.
He said, “What were the questions?” “He asked about Solomon,” I explained, “was he in need of the knowledge of Asaph son of Berachiah?” (Here Mūsā listed some other questions as well.)
The Imam told him, “Write, O my brother,” and he dictated what he should write [to Yaḥyā] as follows: “In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. You asked about God’s speech in His Book: One who had a knowledge of the Book said (). That was Asaph son of Berachiah, but Solomon also had access to what Asaph knew. However, Solomon wanted his nation, including both the jinn and humankind, to know that Asaph would be the authority after him. What Asaph knew was in fact part of Solomon’s knowledge, which he conferred to Asaph by God’s command. God gave him [Asaph] this knowledge so that there would be no disagreement about him as an imam and guide. This was just like the case of Solomon, who was given knowledge during the life of David so that his Imamate (leadership) and prophethood would be known after him. All that was to emphasize God’s proof against the creatures.”
Author’s comment: The author of Rūḥ al-maʿānī has narrated this hadith from Majmaʿ al-bayān. Then he adds, “And you can see the problem with it.” However, there is no point to his objection except that he was not excited to see a mention of Imamate (leadership) in it.
- Imam ʿAlī said: Be more hopeful of what you do not expect than what you do expect, because indeed… the Queen of Sheba went out [from her land] but ended up submitting [to God, or embracing Islam] with Solomon.
It means: “We gave them such knowledge!” (Trans.) ↩︎
See volume 28, pp. 103ff of the English translation. (Trans.) ↩︎
32 kHz is an overestimation. The range is commonly given as 20 to 20,000 Hz. (Trans.) ↩︎
One should indeed “smile, laughing at this speech.” In response to such a closed mindset in understanding the Qur’an, one can only say, “So much I yearn for proper understanding.” Rūmī, Mathnawī, vol. 3, line 2100. (Trans.) ↩︎
As the author explained, “language of animals” in these verses does not refer to the apparent sounds that they emit, but to a special and supernatural level of comprehension that they have. The context of the verses also point to God’s special blessings upon Solomon in terms of knowledge and sovereignty. (Trans.) ↩︎
This is from the same root as yūzaʿūna in verse above, and verse below, where it is interpreted as “stop” and “hold back.” The same word is used in verse , where it has the same meaning. It seems that the common element in īzāʿ is “to make someone stand in a place or position.” Here it would mean: “My Lord, set me up to thank you; make me live up to being grateful….” (Trans.) ↩︎
This exonerates her and sets her clear of what is said in the Torah. It is said there that she was Uriah’s wife, but David slept with her, then he made plans to have Uriah killed in a battle. Then David brought her among his wives, and she gave birth to Solomon for him. (Author)
What is meant by “Torah” here is the Old Testament. See 2 Samuel 11-12. (Trans.) ↩︎
See volume 28, pp. 93ff of the English translation. (Trans.) ↩︎
In other words, by questioning his own awareness, Solomon turns the blame to himself instead of doubting the hoopoe’s obedience. (Trans.) ↩︎
It is intended for emphasis and means “most certainly, surely, indeed.” (Trans.) ↩︎
The author, following the Qur’an, has used the singular masculine pronoun “he” for the hoopoe. This is a linguistic usage in Arabic, but it is especially meaningful in these verses because the hoopoe is an intelligent being. However, I have used the pronoun “it” for the hoopoe as it is normally used for birds in English, in order to avoid confusion with pronouns referring to Solomon. (Trans.) ↩︎
See verses , , , , , , , , , , , , and . (Trans.) ↩︎
This apparently refers to the theory of emanation (ifāḍah) and manifestation (tajallī) in Islamic philosophy and theoretical mysticism. In short, there is no transition between existence and non-existence in the universe, but the entire creation is only a matter of appearance and hiddenness. (Trans.) ↩︎
The problem is that this interpretation turns the meaning away from the apparent meaning of the terms khabʾ and ikhrāj without any evidence to support it. (Trans.) ↩︎
The meaning would be: “He knows what they hide and what they make manifest.” (Trans.) ↩︎
The author’s point here is that the two instances of innahu (lit. “it is”) in this verse have the same meaning and serve the same purpose. The second innahu does not mean “it says”; it does not indicate that she is now reading the letter. Instead, in the entire verse she is explaining why the letter is honorable. Then she describes its content in the following verse. Given this interpretation, it could be that the letter bāʾ in bism Allāh is part of the queen’s description of how the letter begins, not part of the actual text of the letter. (Trans.) ↩︎
Based on this meaning, the letter is saying: “In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. Your lack of exaltation against me [is desired], and come to me in submission.” As the author explains below, this meaning is contrived. (Trans.) ↩︎
In other words, “I’m too good to name him in person. Instead, I refer to him and his entire retinue collectively.” (Trans.) ↩︎
It is unlikely because it involves an abstraction and digression from the specific story and context of the verse. (Trans.) ↩︎
Based on this interpretation, bihā indicates the place where they will lack resistance. Another possibility is to translate the pronoun as “them,” referring to Solomon’s hosts. The meaning would then be: “They shall have no power against our hosts.” (Trans.) ↩︎
The two meanings would effectively be the same. In the first case it would mean: “I am a bringer of it to you.” In the second case it would mean: “I will bring it to you.” (Trans.) ↩︎
In other words, the quality is so rooted in him that it has become part of the subject and united with him, as opposed to being only an action that he does. (Trans.) ↩︎
In other words, since the second sentence is nominal, and since it is joined by the conjunction “and” to the first sentence, it is more likely that the first sentence is also nominal. In Arabic, a nominal sentence (jumlah ismiyyah) is a sentence which describes a subject, not an action, and does not have a verb. (Trans.) ↩︎
Since the verse does not begin with a conjunction (like “and” or “then”), it is as if God has left the previous discourse and moved on to a new topic which is more important. This is similar to headline news which interrupts the previous program. (Trans.) ↩︎
This formula has been altered in hadith books due to being transcribed in Arabic, and due to the transmitters’ unfamiliarity with Hebrew. The original Hebrew is ehyeh asher ehyeh, meaning “I am that I am,” which is how God introduces Himself to Moses in Exodus 3:14. (Trans.) ↩︎
Irtidād means “to be returned,” while radd means “to return.” Semantically, the former is passive while the latter is active. (Trans.) ↩︎
Her submission to Solomon, mentioned in verse is in line with Solomon’s instruction in verse (come to me in submission). Both verses refer to political submission and military peace, as opposed to confrontation and war. However, the current verse and the next one () are about her submission to God in terms of belief. (Trans.) ↩︎
For those who are interested in learning about these narrations, see collections of hadith such as al-Durr al-manthūr [by al-Suyūṭī], ʿArāʾis al-Majālis [by al-Thaʿlabī] and Biḥar al-Anwār [by al-Majlisī], as well as lengthy works of tafsīr. (Auth.) ↩︎
This sentence is deduced from the verse . (Trans.) ↩︎
Al-Iḥtijāj, on the authority of ʿAbd-Allāh b. al-Ḥasan, via his chain of narration, from his fathers. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-Qummī, on the authority of Abū Jārūd. ↩︎
Al-Iḥtijāj. ↩︎
Al-Baṣāʾir, via its chain of narration. ↩︎
This is the fifth view mentioned among a list of other interpretations in Majmaʿ al-bayān. ↩︎
According to the narration in Tuḥaf al-ʿuqūl, Yaḥyā asked a series of questions in writing. This is confirmed by the subsequent part of the hadith, where the Imam tells Mūsā to write back to Yaḥyā. (Trans.) ↩︎
According to another version of the narration, “Solomon taught this knowledge to Asaph…” (Trans.) ↩︎
Majmaʿ al-bayān, from Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, via its chain of narration. ↩︎
Nūr al-thaqalayn, from al-Kāfī. ↩︎