Surah al-Humazah

Introduction

It is Meccan, and its verses are nine, without disagreement regarding both matters. When He, glory be to Him, mentioned in the preceding [Surah] that mankind—except for those He excepted—is in loss, He clarified therein the states of some of those who are in loss, saying, Glory be to He who says:

Surah al-Humazah: (1) Woe to every scorner...

"Woe to every scorner and mocker."

The discussion regarding the parsing of such a sentence has preceded. Al-hamz (scorn) is breaking, like al-hazm. Al-lamz (mockery) is stabbing, like al-haz. Both have become widely used for damaging the reputation of people, disparaging them, backbiting them, and slandering them. The origin of this was metaphorical, as literal breaking and stabbing in bodies is inconceivable; thus, it became a conventional reality. The fa’lah structure indicates habituation. Therefore, one does not say duhkah (a habitual laugher) or la’nah (a habitual curser) unless it refers to one who does so frequently and habitually. Ziyad al-A'jam said:

Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and a group [of scholars] recorded from Ibn Abbas that he was asked about this, and he said: "It is the one who goes about with slander, separating the united and inciting brothers against one another." Ibn Abi Hatim, ‘Abd ibn Humayd, and others recorded from Mujahid: "The humazah is the one who slanders people, and the lumazah is the one who slanders lineages." ‘Abd ibn Humayd recorded from Abu al-‘Aliyah: "The hamz is to the face, and the lamz is behind one’s back." Al-Bayhaqi recorded in al-Shu’ab from Ibn Jurayj: "The hamz is with the eyes, the side of the mouth, and the hand, and the lamz is with the tongue." Others have said besides this, and what has preceded is more comprehensive.

Al-Baqir (may Allah be pleased with him) recited "for every humazah lumazah" with a sukun on the mim in both words, based on the common structure denoting a passive meaning. This means the one who is made a mockery of, who brings forth objects of laughter, such that people laugh at him, insult him, and scorn and mock him.

This was revealed—based on what Ibn Abi Hatim recorded via the path of Ibn Ishaq regarding Ubayy ibn Khalaf, and based on what was recorded from al-Suddi regarding Ubayy ibn ‘Amr al-Thaqafi (famous as al-Akhnas ibn Shariq, for he was a backbiter and often disparaging), and based on what Ibn Ishaq said regarding Umayyah ibn Khalaf al-Jumahi (who used to scorn the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and criticize him), and based on what Ibn Jarir and others recorded from Mujahid regarding Jamil ibn ‘Amir, and what was said regarding al-Walid ibn al-Mughirah and his backbiting the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and disparaging him, and a statement regarding al-‘As ibn Wa’il.

It is permissible that it was revealed regarding all those mentioned. However, the revelation regarding al-Akhnas is problematic because, according to what Ibn Hajar authenticated in al-Isabah, he accepted Islam and was among those whose hearts were to be reconciled, so the coming threat of punishment cannot apply to him. Therefore, either that [the narration] is not authentic, or his Islam is not authentic.

Furthermore, the recitation of al-Baqir (may Allah be pleased with him) is problematic based on what you have heard regarding its meaning and the fact that the verse was revealed concerning al-Walid ibn al-Mughirah and his likes among the notables of the Quraysh. By this, the point raised in the Ta’wilat (Interpretations) is refuted: "How can the disbeliever be criticized for these two actions when he possesses a condition uglier than them, which is disbelief?" As for the response given by some—that disbelief is not ugly in itself, unlike these two—its weakness is not hidden, for the absence of correct belief is uglier than anything ugly.