Hud: (5) "Indeed, they fold up their chests so they may hide from Him..."

This acts as a response to an implied question. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) conveyed what he conveyed to them, and when what was driven toward them of encouragement and intimidation was presented, there occurred in the mind of the listener [a question]: After they heard such discourse—before which the solid mountains crumble—did they respond with acceptance, or did they persist in the turning away and misguidance they were in? Thus, it was said, preceded by the word of alerting—to signal that what follows regarding their defects is a matter that should be understood and wondered at—"Indeed, they..." etc.

The pronoun in "they" refers to the polytheists addressed previously. "Fold up" (yathnuna)—with the ya vocalized with fatha—is the present tense of thana (to fold/bend) a thing, meaning to twist or curve it. From this, according to some, comes the word ithnan (two), because one is bent toward the other; and thana' (praise), for the bending of virtues toward one another; and likewise istithna' (exception), for the bending back toward what is excepted from by way of exclusion. Its root is yathniwuna, then it underwent the well-known morphological change seen in yarmuna.

Regarding what is intended by it, there are several possibilities:

1. It is a metonymy or metaphor for turning away from the Truth, because whoever approaches a thing faces it with his chest, and whoever turns away directs it [the chest] away from it. That is, they fold their chests away from the Truth and deflect from it. The intent is their persistence in the turning and aversion referred to by His saying, "But if they turn away..."
2. It is a metaphor for concealment, because what is placed inside the chest is hidden. That is, they harbor disbelief, aversion to the Truth, and enmity toward the Prophet (peace be upon him).
3. It remains in its literal sense. The meaning is that whenever they see the Prophet (peace be upon him), they do this and turn their backs to him.

It appears that the lam [of "to hide"] is connected to "they fold," according to all possibilities. Some have seen that connection is not valid under the first possibility, because turning away from the Truth cannot be caused by wanting to hide, as there is no causality there. They therefore estimated a connected element—the verb "desire"—making it a state or a coordination to what preceded it; i.e., "and they desire in order to hide from Allah," so that He does not reveal their intentions to His Prophet (peace be upon him) or the believers. He placed it in the position of the implied [verb] in the verse, "Strike with your staff the sea, and it parted," meaning "he struck and it parted." However, it is not hidden that the movement of the mind toward inserting "desire" between the folding of the chests and the hiding is not of the same nature as its movement toward inserting "striking" between the command and the parting, as mentioned by Al-Qastallani and others.

It is said that there is no need for estimation in the first two possibilities, because their deflection from the Truth with their hearts, their bending of their chests away from belief, turning away, and enmity toward the Prophet—without showing that—could be for the purpose of hiding from Allah, due to their ignorance of what is impossible to attribute to Allah.

As for the third possibility, it appears that estimation is necessary unless the pronoun [in "from Him"] is returned to the Messenger (peace be upon him). This is what the cause of revelation requires, according to what Abu Hayyan mentioned: that the verse was revealed concerning some of the disbelievers who, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) met them, would hunch over and fold their chests as if hiding, turning their backs to him and covering their faces with their garments to distance themselves from him, disliking to meet him, while thinking that it is hidden from him (peace be upon him). However, the apparent meaning of the coming verse, "He knows what they conceal and what they declare," requires the pronoun to return to Him (Exalted be He).

Some researchers chose the second of the three possibilities; the matter of the causality and the pronoun for it is clear. They supported this with what was narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that it was revealed concerning Al-Akhnas ibn Shariq. He was a man of sweet speech and pleasant presentation of talk; he would show the Messenger of Allah love while concealing in his heart what contradicts it. But this is not agreed upon, as you heard from Abu Hayyan.

It is said that a man from the disbelievers would enter his house, let down his curtain, hunch his back, and cover himself with his garment, saying, "Does Allah know what is in my heart?" and so it was revealed. Ibn Jarir and others narrated from Abdullah ibn Shaddad that it was revealed concerning the hypocrites; one of them, when passing by the Prophet (peace be upon him), would fold his chest and cover himself so that he would not be seen. This is similar in meaning to what was mentioned from Abu Hayyan, except that it says "some of the disbelievers" rather than "the hypocrites," so it is not countered by the objection that the verse is Meccan and hypocrisy only occurred in Medina. It has been answered that the intent of hypocrisy is not its literal meaning, but rather the behavior emanating from some of the polytheists who had a dissimulation resembling hypocrisy.

It is sometimes said that the claim that hypocrisy occurred only in Medina is not accepted; rather, its manifestation was there, leading to the division into three groups. Even if we concede [the objection], there is no issue; rather, it would follow the style of His saying, "Just as We revealed to the dividers," if interpreted as the Jews, and it refers to what happened to Banu Qurayza, for it is an informing of what will happen, treating it as if it occurred because of its certainty. This is among the miracles because it happened as such. Likewise is the matter we are in.

Yes, what is established in Sahih al-Bukhari—also narrated by Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, and Ibn Marduyah by way of Muhammad ibn 'Abbad ibn Ja'far—is that he heard Ibn Abbas reciting the verse and asked him about it. He said: "People used to be shy to relieve themselves and be exposed toward the sky, or to have intercourse with their wives and be exposed toward the sky, so this was revealed concerning them." There is no narration among the previous ones equal to this in authenticity. The matter of "folding" in this [interpretation] is clear, except that if the intent of "people" is a group of Muslims—as Al-Jalal al-Suyuti stated—the matter becomes problematic. This is because the apparent state of a Muslim, if he is shy before his Lord and does not uncover his nakedness in private, is merely to show etiquette toward Allah, while knowing that nothing curtains his vision and nothing prevents His knowledge. Such shyness is not something anyone would condemn; rather, in the traditions there are explicit commands for it, and it is the hallmark of many of the great ones of the nation. To say that the shyness of those Muslims was accompanied by ignorance of His attributes, thinking that folding hides one from Allah, is something I do not think you would accept. In sum, the matter in these narrations is not without difficulty, and it is not easily dismissed by the soundness of the case. What the context requires and the linking of the verses demands is that the verse is concerning the polytheists, as previously mentioned. Ponder this, and Allah (Exalted be He) knows best.

The erudite scholar (Ibn Abbas), Mujahid, and others read "tathnuna" with a ta for the feminine plural (referring to the chests), or with a ya because the femininity is not actual. It is the present tense of ithnawna like halula; its measure is tafa'wala with the repetition of the ayn (a structure added for exaggeration). It is said that for hala (to be sweet), if exaggeration is intended, one says ihlula. It is intransitive, and "their chests" is its subject. The intent is what was intended by the meanings in the reading of the majority, except that exaggeration is observed in this; one says, for instance, "Their chests incline in a profound inclination."

It is also reported from the erudite scholar, 'Urwa, and others that they read tathnawna with a fatha on the ta, a sukūn on the tha, a fatha on the nun, a kasra on the waw, and a shadda on the final nun. The root is tathnununa, on the measure of tafa'wala from thann (with a kasra on the tha and shadda on the nun), which is withered and weak fodder. Abu Zayd recited: "O you who favor the one who is being favored, you are satiated, so remain silent before me; you suffice the milch camel with a morsel of thann." Assimilation became necessary due to the repetition of the ayn when it is not annexed, and "their chests" here is also in the nominative case as the subject. The meaning is describing their hearts as being weak and frail, like weak vegetation. The "chests" are a metaphor for what is within them: the hearts.

It is permitted that it be the passive/reflexive of thana-hu (he folded it), for it is said thana-hu so it inthana. Ithnawna is as Ibn Malik stated in al-Tashil, saying: "And ifta'wala is for exaggeration; it may agree with istaf'ala and be the reflex of fa'ala." They provided this verb as an example. The meaning is that their chests accepted the folding, and it reverts to the meaning of "incline," as interpreted for the reading of the majority.

From Mujahid, and also 'Urwa al-A'sha, it is reported that he read tathn'un like tatma'inn. Its root is yathna'an, then the alif was changed into a broken hamza to avoid two quiescent letters, even if it is on its measure. In its past tense, it is said ithna'an like ihmarra and ibyadda. It is said its root is tathnuwn with a broken waw, but the kasra on the waw was felt as heavy, so it was changed into a hamza, as was said in wishah (sash), ishah. Its measure is thus tafa'wala, and according to the first, taf'ala. The first is preferred because it is consistent, and it is also from thann (weak fodder).

It was also read tathnawa like tar'awa, and this is attributed to Ibn Abbas. Transmitters erred in saying that the waw has no part in this verb, for it is not said thanawtu-hu so it inthawa, as ra'awtu-hu so it ir'awa. The measure of ir'awa is from the strange measures; in al-Sihah, its estimation is if'awala and its measure is if'alala. It was not assimilated because of the sukūn of the ya. The rest of the discussion on this is sought in its proper place. There are other readings as well; some reached thirteen, and they are detailed in al-Durr al-Masun. Among the strange ones is the reading yathnuna with a damma. Ibn Jinni found this problematic because it is not said athnaytu-hu in the meaning of thanaytu-hu, and it was not heard in any other than this reading. Abu al-Baqa said this is not known in the language unless it is said that its meaning is "they exposed them to folding," as you say "ab'tu the horse" if you expose it for sale.

"Indeed, when they cover themselves with their garments"—meaning they make them coverings. From this is the saying of Al-Khansa: "I shepherd the stars, and I was not tasked with shepherding them; and sometimes I cover myself with the surplus of my worn-out clothes." The gist is when they retire to their beds and wrap themselves in what a sleeper wraps in; it is a time when the speech of the soul usually occurs, according to Ibn Shaddad, when they cover themselves with their garments for concealment. Whatever the case, the meaning of garments is its literal meaning. It is said the meaning is the night, for it conceals just as garments conceal. Similar to that is the saying, "The night is more concealing for the calamity."

The prepositional phrase is connected to His saying, "He knows what they conceal and what they declare," i.e., "Does He not know what they conceal and what they declare when they cover themselves with their garments?" It does not necessitate limiting Allah's knowledge to that time, because He who knows during it knows at other times, a fortiori. It is permitted that it be connected to an omitted [verb], estimated by Al-Samin and Abu al-Baqa as yastakhfun (they hide).

"What" in both instances is either masdariyah (the source) or mawsulah (relative), with its pronoun omitted; i.e., "that which they conceal in their hearts and that which they declare," whatever it may be. The context implies this initially, and some specified it to that. He brought "conceal" before "declare" here to condemn them for what they did from the very beginning, to signal their impending exposure and the occurrence of what they fear, and to achieve equality between the two knowledges in the most eloquent way. It is as if His knowledge of what they conceal is "older" than that of what they declare. The gist is that their concealment and their declaration are equal with respect to His all-encompassing knowledge; so how could what they might reveal be hidden from Him?

Ibn Abbas read "on the time they cover themselves." Ibn 'Atiyyah said this usage is like the saying of Al-Nabigha: "At the time when I reproached gray hair for youth..."

"Indeed, He is knowing of what is in the chests" is an explanation for what preceded it and a confirmation of it. The intent of "what is in the chests" is the secrets lodged within them, or the hearts that are in the chests. Whatever the case, "the essence" (dhat) is not pleonastic, as in dhati ghadwah, nor is it the addition of the named to its name, as was imagined. That is, He is extreme in encompassing the inner thoughts of all people and their secrets, or the hearts and their states. No secret of theirs is hidden from Him, so how could what they conceal and what they declare be hidden from Him?

The expression with the nominal sentence is to signal that He (Exalted be He) has always been knowing of that. It contains evidence that He knows things before their external existence, and this is something that no one denies except a remnant of the Mu'tazilah, who said that He only knows things after they occur—He is far exalted above that. This does not necessarily fall upon some of the theologians who deny mental existence, because if they do not say it while denying mental existence, they would be forced to say that knowledge relates to absolute non-existence, which is among the most self-evident impossibilities. The denial is either stubbornness or ignorance of the meaning of relating to absolute non-existence. This was brought against them by the researcher Al-Dawwani, and it arises, as it is said, from negligence of the meaning of denying mental existence. After clarifying what is intended by it, that is dispelled.

The explanation is that the meaning of their denial is not that no image is obtained in the intellect when we conceive of a thing or attest to it—for its obtaining in reality is self-evident, and only the stubborn would deny it. How could the majority deny it when accidental knowledge is created for them, and creation only relates to the essences of existing things? Rather, it is in the sense that such obtaining is not another mode of the existence of the known quiddity—that a single quiddity, like the sun for instance, would have two existences: one external and the other mental, as those who affirm it say. They do not deny the existence of images and specters of things—for they are external existences and psychological qualities, which are what is created for them—but they deny mental existence for the essences of those things. This is witnessed by their evidence, where they said: "If fire were obtained in the minds, the minds would burn from conceiving it," and the necessary conclusion is false. As you can see, this only negates the existence of the fire itself, not its specter or its likeness.

The truth is that the majority only denied what the deep-thinking philosophers went to—that what is obtained in the minds are the essences of things themselves—and did not deny what the proponents of specters went to. In that case, it is said that the knowledge of the Necessary [Being] for them is either related to the specters of things or it is a quality of the Essence that constitutes that relationship. Thus, they are not forced to say what that remnant said, nor does it follow that the relationship to those specters existing in eternity—being a relation between them and Him (Exalted be He)—is subsequent to them, which would necessitate the creation of those specters without knowledge, which is impossible. We say: since the Necessary [Being] is the Necessary [Cause] in His knowledge and all His essential qualities, the existence of those cognitive images—which are those specters—is a requirement of His Essence (Exalted be He). Thus, there is no harm in them being prior to knowledge of the Essence, and what is subsequent to knowledge are His voluntary acts.

Then, it should be known that the meaning of their saying "The knowledge of the Necessary [Being] (Exalted and Holy be He) regarding things is eternal, and its relationship to them is contingent" is not that there is nothing there but a contingent relationship, for that would necessitate the contingency of the knowledge itself, and we would return to what that remnant fell into—due to the certainty that the known does not become "known" before the relationship of knowledge to it, which is highly corrupt. Rather, it means that the relationship which the reality of knowledge does not require is contingent, and there is a relationship which that reality requires, and it is eternal. This is because the specters and likenesses are known by the Essence, and through them, things are known. The relationship of knowledge for them is broader than its relationship to the essence of the known thing or to its likeness and specter. Since the existence of contingent events did not exist in eternity, the knowledge of the contingent [relative to the events] was through relating to their likenesses and specters. After their occurrence, the relationship renews by being to the essence of those events. In sum, the relationship of knowledge to the likenesses of events and their specters is eternal, and to their own essences and beings is contingent; there is no issue in this at all. By this research, many doubts are dispelled, as it is said.

End of Part Eleven, by the might and power of Allah. It is followed by Part Twelve, beginning with "And there is no creature..."