Tafsir of Yunus 10:2

(Was it a wonder to the people) The hamzah is for the negation of their wonder and for the purpose of making the listeners wonder at it, due to its occurrence in an inappropriate context. By "the people," the disbelievers among the Arabs are intended; they are expressed by the generic noun without reference to their disbelief—which is the axis of their wonderment—as this is addressed later. This is to verify what exists of the shared humanity between the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and them, and to determine the focal point of their wonderment according to their claim, then to clarify their error and demonstrate the falsehood of their claim by introducing the negation.

The lam is attached to a suppressed element that occurs as a state (hal) from "a wonder," as is the rule in qualifying an indefinite noun if it is preceded by it. It is said: It is attached to "a wonder," based on the well-known broadening of usage regarding adverbial phrases (zuruf). Some have made it attached to it not in the way of an object—as in the saying: "I wondered at the striving of time between me and her"—but in the way of explanation, as in "Haita laka" (Come here) or "Suqyan laka" (May you be watered). It is permissible for such to precede the verbal noun (masdar). You know that this is, in reality, a statement of attachment to a hidden element.

It is said: It is attached to it because it is in the meaning of "the thing being wondered at." When a verbal noun acts in the meaning of an object or an agent, it is permissible for its modifier to precede it. It is also permissible for it to be attached to "was" (kana), even if it is incomplete (naqisah), based on the permissibility of that. "A wonder" is the predicate of "was," which has been brought forward before its subject—which is His saying, the Almighty: "that We revealed"—because it is the target of the negation and the wonder, and to create anticipation for what follows. Also, because there is a type of detail in the subject, its postponement respects the original structure, whereas bringing it forward would cause a disruption in the rhythmic responsiveness of the sublime composition.

Ibn Mas’ud read "‘ajabun" (a wonder) in the nominative case as the subject of "was," and it is indefinite; the predicate is "that We revealed," and it is definite because "that" (an) with the verb is in the interpretation of a verbal noun added to a definite noun, similar to Hassan’s saying: "As if a vintage wine from between a head, its mixture is honey and water." Some have interpreted this as inversion (qalb), and there is disagreement regarding its permissibility in an absolute sense or only when it contains a subtle point. The relied-upon view is the condition of it containing such a point, which is not apparent here. It is reported from Ibn Jinni that he said: It was only permissible in the verse because "honey" and "water" are genera, so it is as if he said: "its mixture is the honey and the water." The indefinite of a genus serves the purpose of its definite; do you not see that you say: "I went out and there was a lion at the door," meaning "the lion at the door"? There is no difference between them because in both places you do not intend a specific lion. This is why this is not permissible in your saying: "was standing your brother" or "was sitting your father," because "sitting" and "standing" do not contain the meaning of genus that causes the meaning of its indefinite and definite to meet. The meaning of the verse on this basis is: "Was the revelation to people this genus of action, which is wonder?" It is not hidden that the resultant verbal noun is the verbal noun added to the definite noun, as you have heard; so considering it as having the generic "al" is contrary to the apparent meaning.

Some have permitted predicating the definite with the indefinite specifically in the chapter of "abrogators" (nawasikh), regardless of whether there is a negation or its equivalent or not. Ibn Jinni permits this if there is a negation or its equivalent, but not otherwise. In the verse, the interrogative of negation has preceded the abrogator, which is in the ruling of a negation. Many have chosen the view that "was" is complete (tammah) and "a wonder" is its subject, and "that We revealed" is in the estimation of a preposition attached to "a wonder," meaning: "because We revealed" or "from [the fact] that We revealed." Or it is a substitute for it, either as a substitute of the whole or a substitute of inclusion, and the negation is directed to its position.

The Lawami' limits itself to saying that "to the people" is the predicate of "was," but this has been criticized as being weak in meaning, because it implies a negation of its issuance from the people absolutely, and there is an obvious weakness in that; so understand. It was said "to the people" rather than "at the people" to indicate that they considered it an object of wonder for themselves, and in that is a heightening of the condemnation of their state that is not hidden.

(To a man from among them) That is, to a human being of their own species, as in the saying of the Almighty narrating: "Has Allah sent a human as a messenger?" and His saying: "If our Lord had willed, He would have sent down angels." Or it refers to a man from the rank and file of their men in terms of wealth, not lineage, because he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was among their notables in that regard, and he was in a position regarding it that could not be denied. It is like their saying: "Why was this Quran not sent down upon a great man from the two cities?" In some traditions, it is said that they used to say: "The wonder is that Allah Almighty could not find a messenger to send to the people except the orphan of Abu Talib."

The wonder stems from their excessive ignorance. As for their first statement, they did not know that the sending of an angel only occurs when those sent to are angels, as the Almighty said: "Say, if there were angels on the earth walking peacefully, We would have sent down upon them from the heaven an angel as a messenger." As for the commonality of humans, they are far removed from the merit of engaging with angels, because that is contingent upon proportionality. Sending an angel to them would disrupt the wisdom around which the firmament of creation and legislation rotates. What wisdom requires is the sending of a messenger from among them to the elite—those dedicated to pure souls, supported by sacred power, and connected to both worlds, the spiritual and the physical—so that they may attain the outpouring and the effusion of grace. This is subject to primordial preparedness, as is not hidden.

As for their second statement, the basis for selection for revelation to a person is the advancement in possessing the qualities you have learned of, and being the first in achieving virtues and acquiring noble dispositions, both naturally and through effort. No one has any doubt that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) held the highest rank in this; rather, he (peace and blessings be upon him) possessed the ultimate extremity and the furthest limit of it. His observer says: "And more beautiful than you, my eyes have never seen; and better than you, women have never borne. You were created free from every defect, as if you were created as you wished." And it is also said: "Had you shaped yourself, you would not have added to what is in you of nobility of character." As for advancement in worldly leadership and precedence in attaining wealth, this has absolutely no part in it; rather, it often disrupts it. How excellent is the saying of Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) from some lines of poetry: "But he who is granted wisdom is denied wealth; they are two opposites that are separated."

What they mentioned regarding his being an orphan—if it refers back to what is in the verse regarding the second interpretation, its falsehood is its falsehood. If they meant that the state of being an orphan is a barrier to revelation to him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), then it is more obviously false and clearer nonsense. How subtle is what has been said: "Precious pearls are orphans." It was said to al-Hasan: "Why did Allah Almighty make the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) an orphan?" He replied: "So that no created being would have a favor over him, for Allah Almighty is the One who sheltered, disciplined, and raised him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)."

(This...) The second of the two interpretations mentioned previously in His saying: "to a man from among them"—in the manner we mentioned—is what the author of al-Kashshaf intended. Al-Jalal al-Suyuti did not agree with it and claimed that avoiding it is better. Then he said: "What I hold in the interpretation of this is that the intent is to a man famous among them, whose lineage, majesty, trustworthiness, and chastity they know, as the Almighty said at the end of the preceding surah: 'There has certainly come to you a messenger from among yourselves.' This is the place for the negation of wonder, and this is the aspect of the appropriateness of placing this surah after that one, and the connection of the beginning of this one to the end of that one." Its peer is: "And a messenger came to them from among them, but they denied him," and "Our Lord, send among them a messenger from among them," to the end of what he said.

This has been criticized as being not apparent because, even if it is greater than what was mentioned, the context requires their disbelief and the humbling and belittling of the one whom Allah Almighty has honored and magnified. What the cause of revelation (sabab al-nuzul) requires is the determination of the first view here. Ibn Jarir and others have extracted from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he said: When Allah Almighty sent Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) as a messenger, the Arabs—or those among them who denied—denied it, saying: "Allah Almighty is too great for His messenger to be a human like Muhammad (peace be upon him)." So the Almighty revealed: "Was it a wonder to the people that We revealed to a man from among them?" until the verse, and His saying: "And We did not send before you except men," until the end of the verse.

When Allah Almighty repeated the arguments to them, they said: "And if he is a human, then someone other than Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) would have been more deserving of the message. So why was this Quran not sent down to a great man from the two cities?" So Allah Almighty revealed as a reply to them: "Do they distribute the mercy of your Lord?" until the end of the verse. From this, it is known that what was mentioned in the second interpretation is the cause for the revelation of another verse.

(...that warn the people) That is, inform them of what contains fear for them regarding the consequences of doing what is not appropriate. The intent by "the people" is all the people whom he (peace and blessings be upon him) is able to convey this to, not what was intended by "the people" in the first instance. This is the subtle point in preferring the explicit noun over the pronoun. The fact that the second instance designates the first upon the repetition of the definite noun is not absolute.

"That" (an) is the explanatory [particle] for the object of the implied revelation; it has been preceded by that which carries the meaning of saying without its letters, which is "revelation." Or, it is the "light" an originating from the "heavy" anna, with its subject being the pronoun of state (dhamir al-sha’n) and the imperative sentence being its predicate. There is disagreement regarding its occurrence as the predicate of the pronoun of state without interpretation and estimation of "saying." The author of al-Kashf went to the view that this is not needed because the intent of it is explanation, and many differed with him in this, going to the view that there is no difference between its predicate and the predicate of others.

Some have said: It is the "light" verbal an in position, based on the fact that it is connected to commands and prohibitions, while the majority are on the prohibition of that. Abu Hayyan mentioned this possibility here, even though he is quoted in al-Mughni as holding the view of prohibition, because it causes the meaning of the command to be lost if it is turned into a verbal noun. It was objected that it also causes the meaning of past, present, and future—which are also intended—to be lost, as there is consensus on the permission of connecting it to what indicates that. It was answered that it may be said: "There is a difference between them, for the verbal noun indicates time by implication, so a context might indicate it, thus its meaning is not lost entirely; unlike the command and the prohibition, for the verbal noun has no indication for them at all." Some scholars of precision said: "Just as a verbal noun can be derived from the essence of the word, it can be derived from the form and what follows it. Thus, in this and its like, it is estimated as: 'We revealed to him the command to warn,' just as it was estimated in '‘an la tazni' (that you do not commit adultery) as 'the condition of non-adultery is better'." It is not hidden that this discussion applies to the light an [derived from] the heavy anna because it is also a verbal noun. The least burdensome of the possibilities is the possibility of explanation.

(And give good tidings to those who believe, by what We have revealed to you, and they believe it) that they have—that is, that they have a "footing of truth" (qadam sidq), meaning a precedent and a lofty status—(with their Lord). The original meaning of qadam (foot) is the specific limb, and it was applied to "precedence" as a metaphorical usage because it is its cause and instrument. "Precedence" is then intended to mean merit, honor, and spiritual advancement to lofty stations, also metaphorically. Thus, the metaphor here is of two degrees. It is said: The intent is their precedence over others in entering Paradise, due to his saying (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "We are the last, the foremost on the Day of Resurrection," and his saying (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "Paradise is forbidden to the prophets until I enter it, and to the nations until my nation enters it." It is also said: Their precedence in the resurrection.

The original meaning of sidq (truth/sincerity) is what exists in words, but it is used, as al-Raghib said, in deeds. It is said: "He was truthful in fighting" if he gave it its due. Likewise in its opposite, it is said: "He lied in it," and it is used to express every virtuous act, whether apparent or hidden. Other words are added to it, such as "a seat of truth," "an entry of truth," "an exit of truth," and so on. They explicitly stated here that the genitive construction is of the type of adding the described to its description. The original is qadamun sidqun, meaning "realized and established." In this there is hyperbole by making it identical to truth, then making truth as if it were its owner. It is also possible that the construction is of the type of adding the effect to the cause, and in that is a reminder that the lofty stations they attained were by reason of the sincerity of their speech and intention. Some have said: This reminder can occur based on the first consideration because "truth" may be used metaphorically for fulfilling the rights of virtuous matters, due to the necessity of truth for them, such that it is as if they do not exist without it, and the like is sufficient in that regard for the reminder. This is as [one] points to [something] being hellish, and in this is a subtlety, as is not hidden.

It is permissible that "foot" is intended as the "station," applying the state and intending the place. From al-Azhari: The "foot" is the thing that you advance before you to be a provision for you when you advance to it. This suggests that it is a passive participle, and some have stated this, saying it is like naqd (a piece of money/exchange). It is said: It is a name for the good deed from the servant, just as the "hand" is a name for the good deed from the master. They did this to distinguish between the servant and the master, and this is of an extreme degree of strangeness and is hardly correct in the saying of Dhu al-Rummah: "You have a foot that people do not deny, which, along with ordinary lineage, has flooded over the sea." And his saying: "And you are a man from a family of high lineage who have a known foot in merits." Precedence is what first comes to mind in this, and likewise in the saying of Hassan: "We have the upper foot toward you, and those who follow us are followers of our predecessors in the obedience of Allah." And the saying of another: "Pray to the Lord of the Throne and take a foot that will save you on the day of stumbling and slipping," is possible for all meanings. Is it applied to the precedence of evil or not? The apparent is the former, and Abu Ubaydah and al-Kisa'i have stated this.

The author of al-Insaf said: They did not call the precedence of evil a "foot," either because the metaphor does not run generally or because it prevailed in usage for the precedence of good. There is consideration in this. The interpretation of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) of it as "reward," and Ibn Mas’ud as "action," does not deviate from the meanings we mentioned. Likewise, the interpretation of Ali (may Allah honor his face), Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, al-Hasan, and Zayd ibn Aslam of it as "the head of existents, Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)," returns to interpreting it as good and happiness, as a group has said. That he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is good and happiness for the believers is something no believer doubts. Or it is said: The intent is his intercession (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and the matter in that case is at the peak of clarity.

Good tidings were specified for the believers because it does not pertain to the disbelievers, and giving them tidings if they believe returns to giving tidings to the believers. This is contrary to the warning, for it pertains to the believer and the disbeliever. That is why He, the Almighty, mentioned it, and He, the Exalted, did not mention the object of the warning, for the sake of generalization and awe. He mentioned the object of the good tidings in the manner He mentioned to strengthen the desire of the believers for what will lead them to it. He brought the warning forward before the good tidings because "clearing" (takhliyah—removing the bad) comes before "filling" (tahliyah—adding the good), and removing what is not appropriate takes precedence in rank over doing what is appropriate.

(The disbelievers said) These are the wonderers. Introducing them with this title is appropriate for its context, and the omission of the conjunction is because it flows in the manner of an explanation for the sentence to which the interrogative hamzah was prefixed, or because it is an initiation based on the question as if it were said: "What did they do after the wonder? Did they remain in hesitation and distancing, or did they decide something?" So it was said: "The disbelievers said," in the manner of emphasis: "Indeed, this..."—that is, what was revealed to him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) of the Book, which contains the warning and the good tidings. Al-Khazin claimed there is an omission in the speech, i.e., "Was it a wonder to the people that We revealed to a man from among them, 'Warn and give good tidings'? So when he came to them with the revelation and warned them, the disbelievers said, 'Indeed, this is...'"

(a clear sorcery) That is, manifest. Ibn Kathir and the Kufans read "a magician," referring to the man, by which they meant the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). In the reading of Ubayy: "What is this except a clear sorcery." They intended by "sorcery" the source resulting from the verbal noun. In this is an admission that what they witnessed is outside the bounds of human capability, revealed from the presence of the Creator of powers and faculties. But they call it what they said out of persistence in obstinacy, as is the habit of the arrogant and defeated, and the nature of the confounded and silenced.