Surat Tabbat

Introduction

It is called Surat al-Masad, and it is Meccan. Its verses are five, with no disagreement regarding both matters. When He, Glory be to Him, mentioned prior to this the entry of people into the religion of Islam, He followed it up by mentioning the destruction of some of those who did not enter it and their loss regarding their own selves—so let him weep whose life has been squandered and who has no share or portion thereof.

This is what has been said regarding the reason for the connection [between the surahs]. It is also said that it is a case of connecting a threat (wa'id) with a promise (wa'd), and in every [instance] there is joy for him, blessings and peace be upon him.

The Imam said regarding this that when He, the Almighty, said: "For you is your religion, and for me is my religion," it is as if the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: "Is that so? Then what is my reward?" Allah, the Almighty, said: "For you is victory and conquest." He then asked: "Then what is the reward of my uncle who invited me to the worship of idols?" He said: "May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined." He [the Almighty] placed the promise before the threat so that the victory would be connected to His saying: "And for me is my religion," and the threat would refer back to His saying: "For you is your religion," along the lines of the verse: "The day when faces will turn white [and others will turn black]." Reflect on this consistency attained between these surahs, despite the fact that Surat an-Nasr is among the last to be revealed in Medina and [Surat] Tabbat is among the first to be revealed in Mecca, so that you may know that their arrangement is from Allah, the Almighty, and by His command.

Then he said: Another perspective is that when it was said: "For you is your religion, and for me is my religion," it is as if it were said: "My God, what is the reward of the obedient?" He replied: "The attainment of victory and conquest." Then it was said: "What is the reward of the disobedient?" He replied: "Loss in this world and punishment in the Hereafter," as is indicated by Surat Tabbat. End quote; and it is as you see.

(Perished) means destroyed, as Jubayr and others have stated. From this is their saying "ashabah am tabah" (is he aging or perishing/dying out?), intending by it destruction due to old age and incapacity. It also means lost, as stated by Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, and Qatada. It is also narrated from the first (Ibn Abbas) that it means "failed," and from Yaman ibn Waṭṭāb that it means "emptied of every good." These are near-synonymous meanings according to what is in al-Bahr. Al-Shihab said: The root of tabab revolves around cutting, which leads to destruction, and thus it is interpreted as such. Al-Raghib said: It is persistence in loss. Because it implies persistence, it is said "istatabba li-fulan kadha," meaning it continued for him. This meaning returns to destruction.

(The hands of Abu Lahab) He is Abd al-Uzza ibn Abd al-Muttalib, the paternal uncle of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. He was severely hostile and antagonistic toward the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Among the incidents of this is what is in al-Majma' from Tariq al-Muharibi, who said: "While I was in the market of Dhu al-Majaz, I saw a young man saying, 'O people, say there is no god but Allah, and you will succeed.' Behind him was a man throwing stones at him, wounding his legs and heels, saying, 'O people, he is a liar, do not believe him.' I asked, 'Who is this?' They said, 'This is Muhammad, who claims he is a prophet, and this is his uncle, Abu Lahab, who claims he is a liar.'"

Imam Ahmad, the two Shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim), and al-Tirmidhi narrated from Ibn Abbas: When the verse "And warn your closest kindred" was revealed, the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, ascended Mount Safa and began to call out: "O Banu Fihr! O Banu 'Adi!" to the clans of Quraysh until they gathered. If a man could not go himself, he would send a messenger to see what it was. Abu Lahab and the Quraysh came, and the Prophet said: "If I told you that there is a cavalry in the valley wanting to attack you, would you believe me?" They said, "Yes, we have not found you to be anything but truthful." He said, "Then I am a warner to you before a severe punishment." Abu Lahab then said, "Perish for the rest of the days! Is this why you gathered us?" Thereupon, this was revealed. It is reported that with that statement, he picked up a stone in his hands to throw it at the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. From this, one learns why tabab (perishing) was chosen over halak (destruction) and the like, as well as the attribution of it to his hands.

Similarly, al-Bayhaqi narrated in al-Dala'il from Ibn Abbas that Abu Lahab said: "Has not Muhammad emerged from the mountain pass and appeared to the Quraysh? He promises us things we do not see, claiming they will happen after death! What has he placed in his hands?" Then he blew into his hands and said, "Perish both of you! I do not see in you any of what Muhammad says." Then Tabat yada Abi Lahab (Perished are the hands of Abu Lahab) was revealed. From what was narrated by Tariq, one understands the second point. Thus, the "hands" are intended in the known sense, and the speech is an invocation for their destruction.

His saying, Exalted is He, (and perish) is an invocation for his entire destruction. It is permissible that both are statements of the destruction of those two things (his hands and his person), the expression in the past tense in both instances being for the certainty of the occurrence. Al-Farra' said: The first is an invocation for the destruction of his entire being, on the basis that the "hands" are either a metonymy for the self and soul, due to the inseparable nature between them, or a trope of mentioning the part to mean the whole, as Muḥyī al-Sunnah stated. The objection to this—that it requires the whole to cease to exist by the ceasing of the part, like the head and the neck, and the hand is not such—is not accepted, because leading scholars have stated the contrary here and in His saying, "And do not cast with your hands into destruction." Or, it is intended that, as it is said, that condition exists either in reality or by status, as in calling a scout an 'eye' ('ayn) or a hand (yad) for the one who gives or performs certain actions; for the self, from the perspective of its being described as intended to be described, ceases when that limb ceases. The second part is a report of the occurrence, meaning "it has happened," like the saying of al-Nabigha: "He rewarded me, may Allah reward him with the worst of his rewards / the reward of the howling dogs, and he has done so."

It is considered that this sentence is a state (hal), with a hidden qad (as in qad tab) according to the famous reading, as Ibn Mas'ud read it. In the two Sahihs and elsewhere, from the hadith of Ibn Abbas regarding the reason for the revelation: "Then this Surah was revealed: Tabat yada Abi Lahab wa tab." On this reading, it is impossible for it to be an invocation, because qad does not enter upon verbs of invocation.

It is said that the first is a report about the destruction of his work, as it did not benefit him and did not protect him, for works are performed with the hands usually. The second is a report about the destruction of his own self. In the Ta'wilat (interpretations), the "hand" means favor; he used to show favor to the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and to Quraysh, saying: "If the matter belongs to Muhammad, I have a 'hand' (favor) with him, and if it belongs to Quraysh, likewise." So it was reported that his hand which was with the Prophet has perished by his stubbornness toward him, and his hand which was with Quraysh has also perished by the loss and destruction of Quraysh at the hand of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. This is the meaning of Tabat yada Abi Lahab.

The intended meaning of the second (clause) is the report of his own destruction. He was mentioned by his kunya (patronymic) due to his fame by it, and it was intended to expose him with a bad invocation and for it to remain a mark upon him; mentioning him by his most famous title is more appropriate for that. This is supported by the reading of those who read yada Abu Lahab (in the nominative), as it is said 'Ali ibn Abu Talib and Mu'awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan, so that nothing of it is changed, which would confuse the listener, or out of dislike for mentioning his ugly name, or because—as narrated from Muqatil—he was nicknamed that due to the flaming and radiance of his cheeks. Mentioning that is mockery of him and his pride in that, or for the sake of the consonance with Dhat Lahab (the owner of the flame), and it agrees with it in wording and meaning. The statement that it is not a literal paronomasia because it is not in the rhyme is a delusion, for they do not require that in it. Or it is to make it a metonymy for being a denizen of Hell; as if it were said: "Perished are the hands of a hell-dweller." This is because his attribution to lahab (flame) is like the attribution of the father to the child, indicating his involvement and adherence to it, just as it is said, "He is the father of goodness," "the father of evil," "the brother of virtue," and "the brother of war" for one who is involved in and adheres to these things. His adherence to that necessitates him being a denizen of Hell by customary necessity, for the true flame is the flame of Hell. The transition from Abu Lahab to "hell-dweller" is a transition from the malzum (the implied) to the lazim (the resultant) or vice versa, according to the two opinions on metonymy.

The association between them is realized in the external world and the mind, except that this association is only according to the first naming—that is, the additive—not the second—that is, the naming proper. They consider the original meanings in patronymics. So, Abu Lahab, regarding the proper naming, is used for the specific person, and one transitions from it to him being a hell-dweller; thus, it is a metonymy for the attribute via a mediator. This is what the second scholar (Al-Alusi himself) chose. According to him, it is without a mediator because its original meaning—that is, the one involved in flame—is observed alongside its proper meaning. And he is more correct than the other scholar, because Abu Lahab is used for the specific person, and the speaker—based on their consideration of original meanings in patronymics—transitions from it to the original meaning, then transitions from that to the hell-dweller, and does not observe the original meaning along with it; otherwise, the term Abu Lahab in the verse would be a metaphor, whether the original meaning was observed along with it by way of partiality or restriction, because it is not coined for the whole.

As for what is said—that the literal meaning is not intended in metonymy and that the criterion of benefit, truth, and falsehood in it is the second meaning, and here the specific person is intended—it is of no account, because metonymy is an expression used for the implication of its meaning while allowing the literal meaning to be intended along with it. Thus, it is permissible here for both meanings to be intended. In al-Miftah, it is explicitly stated that what is intended in metonymy is the literal meaning and its implication together.

Al-Sayyid also claimed that the metonymy is due to "Abu Lahab" because he became famous by this name and by being a hell-dweller, so his name indicated his being a hell-dweller just as "Hatim" indicates that he is generous. Thus, when it is used and the transition to this meaning is intended, it is a metonymy for him. The objection to this is that it would necessitate that metonymy in such a case be dependent upon the person's fame by that name, and this is not the case; for they transition from the patronymic to what its named person implies according to the origin, without dependence on fame. The poet said: "I visited the beauties so that I might see him... out of a longing that pulled me toward him. When I saw a unique one for him... and I did not see among his children a son like him."

Furthermore, there is remoteness in it. Ibn Muhaisin and Ibn Kathir read Abi Lahab with a sukun on the ha', which is among the changes of proper names, as stated in al-Kashshaf. Abu al-Baqa' said: The fatha and sukun are two dialects, and it is a matter of analogy according to the Kufan school.