Tafsir of Yunus 10:15

The Almighty’s saying, "And when Our verses are recited to them as clear signs," constitutes a shift from addressing them to the third person (the absent). This is an act of turning away from them and directing the discourse instead to the Master of those being addressed, peace be upon him. It is done by enumerating their crimes—which contradict the purpose for which they were appointed as successors—such as their denial, their disbelief in the clear signs, and other such acts, following the custom of those who preceded them from the destroyed generations.

The imperfect tense (tutla) denotes the renewal of their response as the recitation is renewed. The "signs" (ayat) refer to the verses demonstrating monotheism and the invalidity of polytheism. It is also said that it is more general than that. The annexation (idafa) serves to honor the annexed (the signs) and acts as an inducement to believe in them, as well as a warning against denying them. "Clear signs" (bayyinatin) is in the accusative case as a state (hal), meaning they are clear in their indication of what they contain.

The act of recitation is rendered in the passive voice and attributed to the verses rather than to the Messenger of Allah—by using the active voice—to indicate that there is no need to specify the reciter. It also serves to signal that their discourse is about the recited text itself; even if a man from either of the two great cities were to recite it, they would say it.

"Those who do not expect to meet Us say," placing the relative pronoun (alladhina) in place of the pronoun is to signal that the reason for the predicate lies within the relative clause—a clause of great significance recounted about them, aimed at disparaging them for it. That is, they said to the one reciting it to them—who is the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him—"Bring a Quran other than this." By this, they refer to the Quran that contains those verses, not merely the verses themselves, intending to remove the entire matter from existence. That is, "Bring another book that we may read which does not contain what we find objectionable, such as the Resurrection and its consequences, or what we dislike, such as the condemnation of our gods and the threats regarding their worship."

"Or change it," meaning: "Replace the verse that contains such matters with another verse." Perhaps they only asked for this out of deception and greed, hoping that he—peace be upon him—would comply, so that they could force him into a trap and mock him; they did not truly intend that if he complied, they would believe.

"Say," O Messenger, to them, "It is not for me to change it..." The verbal noun (tabdiluhu) is the subject of yakunu, which is a "complete" verb (tamma)—meaning "to exist" or "to be possible." Negation of existence here can also imply the negation of validity, as the existence of that which is not valid is as if it does not exist at all. Thus, the meaning here is: "It is not valid for me at all to change it."

"On my own accord," meaning: from my own direction or from myself. Tilqa' is fundamentally a verbal noun on the pattern of tif'al (with a kasrah on the ta'). No other verbal noun of this pattern has come with a kasrah except this one, in the well-known view. There is an irregular reading with a fatha (on the ta'), which is the standard analogy for verbal nouns denoting repetition, such as tattawaf (circumambulation) and tijwal (wandering). It has moved here from that meaning to metaphorical location. Even so, the preposition min does not remove the noun from its locative status; this is why non-inflected locatives, like ‘inda (with), are specifically used when preceded by it.

The discourse narrows the response to explaining the impossibility of their second suggestion to signal that the impossibility of what they suggested first is so self-evident that there is no need to state it. Furthermore, what indicates the impossibility of the second also indicates the impossibility of the first by way of the a fortiori argument (al-tariq al-awla). Thus, in outcome and reality, it is a response to both matters.

"I follow," meaning: "I follow nothing in what I bring or leave aside except what is revealed to me, without changing it in the slightest." This implies confining his state—peace be upon him—to following what is revealed, not confining the act of following to only what is revealed to him, as is the immediate impression from the outward phrasing. It is as if it were said: "I do nothing but follow what is revealed to me." The sentence is an initiation (musta’nafa) to clarify what is the case, for it is his nature to follow the revelation as it is; he does not act independently in anything apart from it.

In this, according to some, is a response to an implied objection: "How is this so, when some verses have abrogated others?" It is also a rebuttal to their insinuation with this question that the Quran is his own speech—peace be upon him. Similarly, the qualification of the change in the response by the phrase "on my own accord" is to refute their implication that it is from himself—peace be upon him. For this reason, he also called it a "great disobedience," followed by the threat of a great punishment, by his saying—Almighty is He: "Indeed, I fear, if I should disobey my Lord, the punishment of a great day." (15).

This is the justification for the content of what preceded it regarding the impossibility of the change and the limitation of his command—peace be upon him—to following the revelation. Meaning: "I fear if I were to disobey Him, the Almighty, by attempting a change and turning away from the revelation, the punishment of a great day." This is the Day of Judgment and the day of the meeting which they do not expect. In this is an indication that they have incurred the punishment through this suggestion, for suggesting what necessitates it also brings about the incurring of it, even if it is not the same as committing the act. Using the title of "Lordship" while annexing it to his own pronoun—peace be upon him—is to emphasize the gravity of disobedience and to demonstrate the perfection of his purity—peace be upon him. The use of the indefinite "day" (yawm) with the honorific nunation (tanwin) and describing it as "great" needs no further explanation regarding the horror and the loathsomeness of the punishment within it.

The scholar al-Tibi allowed for the possibility that the aforementioned response covers both suggestions without needing anything further, by interpreting "change" in it to include:

1. The change of an essence for another essence (e.g., exchanging dinars for dirhams), which is what they signaled with "Bring a Quran other than this."
2. The change of an attribute for another attribute (e.g., exchanging a ring for a hoop), which is what they signaled with "Or change it."

It has been argued against this that the qualification of the change by the Almighty's saying "on my own accord" prevents it from being interpreted in the broader sense, because it implies that such a thing is within his power—peace be upon him—but that he does not do it without the permission of the Almighty. The first type of change they suggested is not within his power—peace be upon him—to the point that the suggestors themselves know the impossibility of it; they suggested it out of stubbornness and defiance.

Furthermore, it is apparent that they suggested the change and the production of a new text by way of fabrication. It is said there is no room for saying they requested that from the side of revelation. So it is as if they said: "Bring a Quran other than this or change it from the side of revelation, just as you brought the Quran from His side." The meaning of his saying "It is not for me..." would be: "It is not easy for me, nor is it possible for me, to change it."

As for the Kashshaf's argument that "Indeed I fear, if I should disobey my Lord..." refutes this, it has been countered that they did not request what is disobedience under this interpretation, so he would not say what is mentioned in response. This was scrutinized by stating that a request made without permission is an act of disobedience. If "it is not easy for me" is not interpreted as "because it is unauthorized," then the response does not correspond to their question, because the question was about a change from Allah, while he—peace be upon him—said in the response: "I cannot change it on my own accord." If it is interpreted as such, then disobedience is also applied to it.

The answer is that the author of the Kashshaf interpreted "it is not for me" to mean it is impossible and not easy, and disobedience occurs regarding that which is possible and within one's power, not whether they requested what is disobedience or not. The correspondence is achieved, and it is in fact at its strongest: for what is possible—a change on my own accord—is impossible, and as for that which is from revelation, I am a follower, not the one followed. Indeed, it cannot be denied that another interpretation is possible: that he meant it is not lawful for me without permission, and the author of the Kashshaf did not deny that.

Some researchers have mentioned that there is no room to interpret their suggestion as being from the side of revelation because of the justification: "Indeed I fear..." for the purpose of what is mentioned therein is the disobedience of fabrication, as is directed by the explicit meaning of the two noble verses that follow. In that case, that particular disobedience is not realized, and the disobedience of requesting a change to what legislative wisdom has determined—especially at the demand of disbelievers—is not intended; thus, its realization is of no benefit. This is a sound statement from which the flaws in the previous argument can be understood.

It remains that it is understood from some reports that they did request the bringing of a new text from the side of revelation. It is narrated from Muqatil that the verse was revealed concerning five individuals: Abdullah ibn Umayyah al-Makhzumi, al-Walid ibn al-Mughirah, Mukarrith ibn Hafs, ‘Amr ibn Abdullah ibn Abi Qays al-‘Amiri, and al-‘As ibn ‘Amir ibn Hisham. They said to the Prophet, peace be upon him: "If you want us to believe in you, then bring a Quran that does not contain the abandonment of the worship of al-Lat, al-‘Uzza, and Manat, and does not contain their condemnation. And if Allah has not revealed it to you, then say it from yourself, or change it; make a verse of mercy in place of a verse of punishment, and make lawful what is forbidden and forbidden what is lawful."

Perhaps it may be said that even if this were true, it does not prevent the verse from containing what the second conditional part of their statement pointed toward. Ponder this.