Tafsir of Ar-Ra'd 13:11

"For him"—the pronoun refers to the one previously mentioned, who conceals speech or speaks it aloud, and so on, by considering it to mean the aforementioned person and treating it in the same manner as a demonstrative noun; the same applies to what is mentioned after it.

"Consecutive" (mu‘aqqibat)—angels who follow one another in protecting and guarding him. It is the plural of mu‘aqqibah, which is an intensive form of ‘aqabah (he who follows on his heels). Its root is al-‘aqib, the heel of the foot. It is then used metaphorically to denote an action occurring without any gap or interval, as if one of them steps on the heel of another. The taf‘il (the doubling of the middle radical) here denotes frequency, whether in the actor or the action, not transitivity, because the triliteral root is already transitive by itself. It is also permissible that the application of mu‘aqqibat to the angels (peace be upon them) is based on the fact that they "follow" (yu‘aqqibun) a person’s words and actions—that is, they track them and record them in writing.

Al-Zamakhshari said: "Its original form is mu‘taqibat, following the ifti‘al pattern, where the ta was assimilated into the qaf, like His saying (exalted is He): 'And those who make excuses came' (wa ja’a al-mu‘adhdhirun), meaning al-mu‘tadhirun." This is countered by the assertion that it is a gross error, for the ta cannot be assimilated into the qaf, whether in one word or two. Grammarians have explicitly stated that both qaf and kaf are not assimilated into each other, nor are they assimilated into others. The ta in mu‘aqqibah is for intensity, like the ta in nassabah (genealogist), because the angels (peace be upon them) are not feminine. It is also said: It is for the feminine, meaning that mu‘aqqibah is an adjective for a group among them, so mu‘aqqibat means groups, each group being a mu‘aqqibah—not that mu‘aqqibah is the plural of mu‘aqqib.

Al-Tabari mentioned that it is a plural, likening it to rajul, rijal, and rijalat. You can see the state of this; however, Abu Hayyan interpreted it by saying that by "the plural of mu‘aqqib", he meant that it is applied in usage to the plural of mu‘aqqib, even if its origin is to be applied to the feminine of mu‘aqqib. It thus becomes like al-waridah (the arriving ones) for a group who arrive, even if its origin is the feminine of warid. The comparison of this to what was mentioned is in terms of meaning, not in terms of the craft of grammar. Thus, he clarified that mu‘aqqibah, in terms of intending the plural, is like rijal in terms of its being set for the plural, and that mu‘aqqibat, in terms of its usage, is the plural of the mu‘aqqibah used for the plural, like rijalat, which is the plural of rijal.

Ubayy and Ibrahim read it as ma‘aqib, which is a plural, as Al-Zamakhshari said, the plural of mu‘aqqib or mu‘aqqibah with the qaf doubled in both, and the ya is a substitute for the omission of one of the two qafs in the broken plural. Ibn Jinni said: It is the broken plural of mu‘aqqib, like mat‘am and mata‘im, or muqaddam and muqadim, as if it were pluralized as mu‘aqabah, then the ha was dropped from the plural and the ya was substituted for it. Perhaps this is the most apparent. It was also read as mu‘taqibat, from i‘taqaba.

"From before him and from behind him"—this relates to a deleted element that serves as an adjective for mu‘aqqibat, or as a state (hal) from the pronoun in the prepositional phrase that serves as its predicate. Thus, the meaning is that the mu‘aqqibat surround him on all sides. Or, it relates to mu‘aqqibat, with min (from) denoting the point of commencement; the meaning is that the mu‘aqqibat protect what he has sent forward and what he has left behind of his deeds—that is, they protect all his deeds. It is also permissible that it relates to His saying (exalted is He): "They protect him", and the sentence is an adjective for mu‘aqqibat or a state (hal) of the pronoun in the prepositional phrase.

Ubayy read: "From before him and a watcher from behind him" and Ibn Abbas read: "And watchers from behind him." Mujahid narrated from him that he read: "For him are consecutive [angels] from behind him and a watcher from before him, they protect him."

"By the command of God"—this relates to what is with Him, and min (from) denotes cause; that is, they protect him from harms due to God’s command to them to do so. This is supported by the fact that Ali (may God honor his face), Ibn Abbas (may God be pleased with them both), Zayd bin Ali, Ja’far bin Muhammad, and ‘Ikrimah (may God be pleased with them) read it as bi-amr Allah (by the command of God), with the ba’, which clearly indicates causality.

It is also permissible to relate it to that, but with the meaning: "They protect him from the intensity of God’s decree when he sins, by seeking respite or forgiveness for him." That is, they protect him by soliciting from God (the Exalted) that He respite him and delay his punishment so that he may repent, or they ask God to forgive him and not punish him at all. In Al-Bahr, it is said that the meaning of the speech on this view becomes an implication, meaning they pray for his protection from the vengeance of God (the Exalted).

Al-Farra and a group said: In the speech, there is a transposition (a placing of what should be late, early), meaning: "For him are consecutive [angels] from the command of God, protecting him from before him and from behind him." This was narrated from Mujahid, Al-Nakha’i, and Ibn Jurayj. In this case, min amr Allah relates to a deleted element serving as an adjective for mu‘aqqibat, meaning "existing by His command (the Exalted)."

It is said that in this sense, one does not need to claim a transposition. It is said that He (Glory be to Him) described the mu‘aqqibat with three attributes: first, their being from before him and from behind him; second, their being his protectors; and third, their being of His command. If one makes "from before him" relate to "they protect him," there are two attributes: the sentence and the prepositional phrase. Placing the description by the sentence before the description by the prepositional phrase is common and allowed in eloquent speech. It is as if the description by the sentence, which indicates the permanence of the protection, was placed first because it is more emphatic.

Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Jarir, and Abu al-Shaykh narrated from Ibn Abbas that the mu‘aqqibat are the guards that princes keep for their protection from murder and the like. The same was narrated from ‘Ikrimah. The meaning of "they protect him from the command of God" is that they protect him from the decree and predestination of God (the Exalted), warding it off from him in his imagination due to his ignorance of God. It may also be a case of mocking metaphor, similar to the well-known saying of God (exalted is He): "Give them tidings of a painful punishment." It is used for its opposite, while the reality is that they do not protect him. On this basis, the saying of some is derived: "The intended meaning is that they do not protect him," not that there is an implied negation, as one might imagine.

Most hold that the mu‘aqqibat are angels. In the Sahih, it is stated: "Angels succeed one another among you at night and angels by day, and they gather at the dawn prayer and the afternoon prayer." They mentioned that with the servant, besides the noble recording angels, there are guardian angels. Abu Dawud, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi al-Dunya, and others narrated from Ali (may God honor his face) that he said: "For every servant, there are guardians who protect him so that a wall does not fall on him, or he does not fall into a well, or a beast does not strike him, until the decree that was ordained for him comes; then the guardians leave him, and what God wills to afflict him with, befalls him."

Ibn Abi al-Dunya, Al-Tabarani, and Al-Sabuni narrated from Abu Umamah that the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said: "There are assigned to the believer three hundred and sixty angels who defend him from that which has not been decreed for him. Of these, there are seven angels for the eyes, who defend him as one defends a bowl of honey from flies on a hot day. If what is hidden from you were to be revealed, you would see them on every plain and mountain, all of them stretching out their hands, their mouths wide open. If the servant were left to himself for the blink of an eye, the devils would snatch him."

Ibn Jarir narrated from Kinanah al-‘Adawi that he said: ‘Uthman (may God be pleased with him) entered upon the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) and said: "O Messenger of God, tell me about the servant, how many angels are with him?" He said: "An angel on your right for your good deeds, and he is a commander over the one on the left. When you perform a good deed, it is written tenfold; when you perform a sin, the one on the left says to the one on the right, 'Shall I write it?' He says, 'No, perhaps he will seek forgiveness from God and repent.' If he says it three times, he says, 'Yes, write it. May God relieve us of him. What a bad companion! How little he watches God (the Exalted) and how little he is shy before Him!' God (the Mighty and Majestic) says: 'He utters not a word except that there is a watcher by him, ready' (Qaf: 18). And two angels before you, and two angels behind you. God (the Exalted) says: 'For him are consecutive [angels] from before him and from behind him, they protect him by the command of God.' And an angel gripping your forelock; if you humble yourself for God, He raises you, and if you act arrogantly toward God, He breaks you. And an angel standing at your mouth; he does not let a serpent enter it. And two angels on your eyes. These are ten angels who descend upon every son of Adam during the day, and their likes descend during the night."

The reports on this subject are numerous. The matter of protection is considered problematic because that which is decreed must inevitably be, and that which is not decreed cannot be. So, protection is from what? It is answered that there is from the decree and predestination that which is conditional; hence, protection is from that, and this is why the undertaking of causes is commendable. Otherwise, such a thing would be raised regarding them by saying: "The matter that you wish to undertake—is its existence decreed? Then it must be. Or is its non-existence decreed? Then it must not be. So what is the benefit in undertaking it and clinging to its causes?" This is countered by the fact that what was mentioned is only commendable on our part because of our ignorance of whether what we seek is from the conditional or otherwise, and the problematic question is not like that.

You know that God (the Exalted) has placed visible causes in sensible things and linked their effects to them according to what His dazzling wisdom dictates. If He had willed, He could have brought about the effects without causes, due to His Essential Independence (Majestic is He). There is no obstacle to His placing in non-sensible matters causes by which He links effects. In that case, it is said: His Greatness (Exalted is He) made those guardians causes for protection, just as He made the eyelid a cause for the protection of the eye in the sensory world, even though it is not a cause except for protection from what has not been finalized of His decree and predestination (His Majesty be exalted). Standing upon the specific wisdoms is something we are not charged with, and knowing that His actions (the Exalted) are not devoid of wisdom and benefits in a general sense is sufficient for the believer.

Something similar is said regarding the Noble Recording Angels; they exist by the text, and God (the Exalted) has made them guardians of the servant’s deeds, writing them down. We believe in that, even if we do not know what their pen is, what their ink is, what their paper is, how their writing is, where their place is, and what the wisdom of that is. Even so, His knowledge (the Exalted) is sufficient regarding the reward and punishment for them. Likewise, the human being’s remembering them and his knowledge of them on the Day of Resurrection is sufficient to ward off what may occur in his breast upon witnessing what results from them. There are some who have delved into explaining the wisdom, which is easier than explaining what accompanies it.

Imam al-Razi, in answering the question about the benefit of having the angels (peace be upon them) assigned to us, mentioned a long discourse. He said: "Know that this is not unlikely, because astrologers have agreed that the management of each day belongs to a particular planet, and the same is said for each night. There is no doubt that those planets have spirits according to them, so those different management activities are in reality for those spirits. The same is said for the management of the Hyleg and the Alcocoden according to what they say. As for the masters of talismans, this speech is famous on their tongues; they say, 'Inform the perfect nature of such and such.' By this, they mean that every human being has a celestial spirit that takes charge of his interests and wards off his afflictions and calamities. If this is agreed upon among the ancient philosophers and the masters of judgments, how can it be deemed unlikely that it should appear in the Sacred Law?"

The full verification of this is that human spirits vary in their essences and natures; some are good, some are evil, some are free, some are base, some are strongly dominant, and some are weak. Just as the case is with human spirits, so is the case with celestial spirits. There is no doubt that celestial spirits are stronger in every chapter and attribute than human spirits. Each group of human spirits shares a specific nature and a particular attribute and is in the rank of a spirit of the celestial spirits that resembles it in nature and property. Thus, those human spirits are as if they were children of that celestial spirit. If the matter is so, then that celestial spirit assists in their tasks, guides them to their interests, and protects them from various calamities. This is a discourse mentioned by the verifying philosophers, and by it, one knows that what the Sacred Law has brought is a matter accepted by all, so it cannot be rejected.

Perhaps his intention by that is to draw a parallel between the matter of the guardians with the servant and the matter of the celestial spirits with him according to the claim of the philosophers in a general sense. Otherwise, what Muslims say about their matter and what the philosophers say about the matter of those spirits is another matter. Far, very far it is that we should say what they said, for it is stages away from what has come from the Lawgiver (peace and blessings be upon him). Then, he (may mercy be upon him) mentioned from the benefits of the guardians of deeds that if a servant knows that the angels (peace be upon them) are present with him and counting his deeds upon him—and they are who they are—it would be closer to caution against committing sins, like someone who is in the presence of eminent servants of a king assigned to him; he would hardly attempt a sin among them. Others have mentioned this, and it is not devoid of merit. Then he reported from the theologians regarding the benefit of the written scrolls that they will be weighed on the Day of Resurrection. "So as for him whose scales are heavy, he will be in a pleasant life; but as for him whose scales are light, his home will be the Abyss." Both of these things will be apparent to all creation.

The Judge countered this by saying that this is far-fetched, because the evidences have indicated that everyone, before he dies, at the time of witnessing [the end], knows whether he is among the blessed or the wretched (we seek refuge in God). Therefore, it is not permissible for the attainment of knowledge to be dependent on the scale. Then he answered that what we mentioned is also not impossible, for a matter that returns to the servant obtaining joy at the great gathering by the manifestation that he is among the allies of God, and the opposite for those who were among the enemies of God. It is not hidden that this is based on the fact that what is weighed are the scrolls, which is one of the opinions on the issue. Indeed, a group of the eminent scholars went to this view due to the hadith of the Bitaqah (card) and the famous records. Likewise, it is based on the fact that the writing is in its literal meaning, which is what the People of Hadith and others have held, as far as I know.

It was reported from the philosophers of Islam another meaning. He said: "Writing is an expression of specific inscriptions placed by convention to define certain specific meanings. If we suppose those inscriptions to be indicative of those meanings in their essences and entities, that writing would be stronger and more complete. In that case, we say: If a human being performs an action many times in succession, a strong, firm habit (malakah) is formed in his soul because of that. If that habit is a habit for beneficial deeds in spiritual happiness, his delight after death is great; and if that habit is a harmful habit in spiritual affairs, his harm from it after is great." Then he said: "If this is proven, we say: If the frequent repetition is a cause for the attainment of that firm habit, then each of those deeds has an effect in the attainment of that habit. Although that effect is not felt, it is in reality obtained. If this is known, it becomes apparent that no glance, movement, or stillness occurs for a person except that an effect of the effects of happiness or an effect of wretchedness is obtained in the essence of his soul, whether it be small or large. This is what is meant by the writing of deeds according to the philosophers of Islam, and God (the Exalted) is the Knower of the realities of things." This has ended, and I have seen it attributed to some of the Sufis.

You know that this is contrary to what the verses and reports have stated. In such matters, we do not deviate from the literal meaning as much as possible. The truth is manifest, and after the truth, there is nothing but error. Some have made the pronoun in "For him" refer to the one mentioned last, but the first is more appropriate. Some have made it refer to God (the Exalted), and what follows to the one, in which there is a separation of pronouns without any necessity. Some have made it refer to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and he (peace and blessings be upon him) is known from the context. The reports about him (peace and blessings be upon him) have already been mentioned in His saying (exalted is He): "And they say, 'Why is a sign not sent down upon him?'" and so on.

Evidence for this was drawn from what Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Al-Tabarani in Al-Kabir, Ibn Marduyah, and Abu Nu‘aym in Al-Dala’il narrated via ‘Ata’ bin Yasar from Ibn Abbas that Arbad bin Qays and ‘Amir bin al-Tufayl came to Medina to the Messenger of God (peace be upon him). They came to him while he (peace and blessings be upon him) was sitting, and they sat before him. ‘Amir said: "What will you give me if I embrace Islam?" The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "You have what the Muslims have, and you have what they have." He said: "Will you give me the authority after you if I embrace Islam?" He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "That is not for you or your people, but you have the cavalry." He said: "Then give me the Bedouins, and you have the cities." He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "No." When he turned away from him, he said: "I will surely fill it against you with cavalry and footmen." The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "God (the Exalted) will prevent you." In a narration: "...and the sons of Qaylah," meaning the Aws and the Khazraj. When they went out, ‘Amir said: "O Arbad, I will distract Muhammad with talk for you, so strike him with the sword; for when the people see you have killed him, they will not do more than accept the blood money, and they will dislike war, so we will pay them the blood money." Arbad said: "Do it."

They turned back, and ‘Amir said: "O Muhammad, stand with me so I may speak to you." He (peace and blessings be upon him) stood with him, and they stood alone by a wall. ‘Amir stood speaking to him, and Arbad drew his sword. When he placed his hand on its hilt, it withered on the hilt, and he could not draw it. It became slow for ‘Amir, so the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) turned and saw Arbad and what he was doing, so he turned away from them. ‘Amir said to Arbad: "What is the matter with you?" He said: "I placed my hand on the hilt of my sword and it withered." When they went out, until they were at Ar-Raqm, they descended. Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh and Usayd bin Hudayr came out to them, and Usayd fell upon them and said: "Get out, O enemies of God! May God curse you!" ‘Amir said: "Who is this, O Sa‘d?" He said: "This is Usayd bin Hudayr, the Commander." ‘Amir said: "By God, Hudayr was a friend of mine." Then God (the Exalted) sent a thunderbolt upon Arbad and killed him, and ‘Amir went out until he was in the valley of Al-Jarid, when God (the Exalted) sent upon him a boil, and death overtook him. In a narration: He was crying, "O family of ‘Amir, like the swelling of a camel, and death in the house of a Saluliyyah woman." So God sent down regarding them: "God knows what every female bears..." until His saying (Exalted is He): "For him are consecutive [angels]..." to the end.

Then he said: "The consecutive [angels] are by the command of God, protecting Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him)." It came in another narration from him (may God be pleased with him) that he said: "This is for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) specifically." Most consider the generality, and the cause of revelation does not preclude that. And God (the Exalted) knows best.

Then, after mentioning the encompassment of His knowledge of the servants and that they have consecutive guardians who protect them by His command (His Majesty be exalted), He alerted [them] to the necessity of obedience and the consequence of disobedience, saying (Mighty is He from a Speaker): "Indeed, God does not change the condition of a people"—that is, of grace and well-being—"until they change what is in themselves"—that is, what their selves are characterized by in terms of beautiful conditions, not just what they concealed and intended. The meaning of changing that is to replace it with its opposite, not merely leaving it.

It was reported from Ali (may God honor his face) in a marfu‘ (elevated) narration: God (the Exalted) says: "By My Might, My Majesty, and My Exaltation above My Throne, there is no people of a village, nor family, nor a man in the wilderness who were upon what I dislike of My disobedience, then turned from it to what I love of My obedience, except that I turn from them what they dislike of My punishment to what they love of My mercy. And there is no people of a village, nor family, nor a man in the wilderness who were upon what I love of My obedience, then turned from it to what I dislike of My disobedience, except that I turn from them what they love of My mercy to what they dislike of My punishment." This was narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah, Abu al-Shaykh, and Ibn Marduyah.

The apparent meaning of the verse was considered problematic, as it indicates that the change of blessings does not happen to a people until a change occurs from them through sins, even though that is contrary to what the Sacred Law has established regarding the taking of the general public for the sins of the elite. From this is His saying (Exalted is He): "And fear a trial that will not strike those who have wronged among you specifically," and his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) when asked: "Shall we perish while among us are the righteous?" "Yes, if wickedness abounds," and his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "If they see the wrongdoer and do not take hold of his hand, it is near that God (the Exalted) will encompass them with punishment," in many things. Furthermore, God (the Exalted) may send down upon the servant calamities by which He increases his reward, and the sinner may be lured by the abandonment of that.

Ibn ‘Atiyyah interpreted it to mean: "Until a change of what is in them occurs from them or from those who are among them," just as He (Exalted is He) changed the situation with the defeated ones on the Day of Uhud because the archers changed what was in themselves. The truth is that the meaning is that this is God’s customary practice that runs in most cases, not that He (Exalted is He) does not strike a people except by the precedence of a sin from them. So, there is no problem. It is said: You may say that His saying (Exalted is He): "And when God intends for a people ill, there is no repelling it" is a completion to remedy what was mentioned, but there is contemplation in that. "Ill" (su’) gathers everything that is evil: illness, poverty, and other types of affliction. "Repelling" (maradd) is a mimated noun, meaning there is no rejection of it. The operative in "when" (idha) is what the answer points to, because the object of the infinitive, as well as what follows the fa, cannot precede it. The estimation, as Abu al-Baqa’ said, is "It occurred, or it was not repelled," or similar. The apparent [meaning] is that idha is for universality, as it has come likewise in most of the verses.

"And there is for them besides Him"—the Exalted—"no protector"—who manages their affairs of harm and benefit. This includes, as a primary inclusion, the warding off of evil from them. It is said: The first is an allusion to the negation of the "warder" with the dal, and this is an allusion to the negation of the "lifter" with the ra’, so that it is not repeated. There is no need for that, as is not hidden.

Evidence was drawn from the verse that opposing the intent of God (the Exalted) is impossible. It was objected that it indicates that when He (Exalted is He) intends ill for a people, its occurrence is necessary, and it does not indicate that every intent of His (the Exalted) is likewise, nor [does it indicate] the impossibility of opposing it, but rather its non-occurrence. It was answered that there is no difference between intending ill and intending otherwise, but he limited it to the intent of the first because the speech is about the retribution of the disbelievers, and it is more eloquent in frightening them. So, if the repelling of evil is impossible, then other things are likewise. The meaning of impossibility is the impossibility of occurrence, not of the essence. It is not hidden that this is contrary to the apparent meaning.

Among the strangest things said is that the majority argued with the verse that sins are included in the "ill" and that they are by the creation of God (the Exalted). Some have made the verse relate to His saying (exalted is He): "And they hasten you with the evil..." and so on. Abu Hayyan explained that in a way that no one is satisfied with. It is said that in it is a signaling that they, by what they practiced of denying resurrection, hastening the evil, and proposing the sign, have changed what was in their selves of innate nature (fitrah), and for that, they deserved the settling of God’s anger.

Ibn Kathir paused on had (guide), as well as waq (protector) wherever it occurred, and on wal (protector) here, and baq (remaining) in Surah An-Nahl by affirming the ya, while the rest of the seven paused by omitting it. In Al-Iqna‘ by Abu Ja‘far Ibn al-Badhish, from Ibn Mujahid: the pause in the whole chapter for Ibn Kathir is with the ya. This is not known to the Meccans. It also contains from Abu Ya‘qub al-Azraq from Warsh that he gave him the choice in pausing in the whole chapter between pausing with the ya and pausing by omitting it. Thus it is in Al-Bahr. It also mentions that Ibn Kathir and Abu ‘Amr in a narration affirmed the ya in al-muta‘al (the Exalted) in pause and connection, which is common in the tongue of the Arabs, while the others omitted it in connection and pause because it was so inscribed in the Imam (the Uthmanic codex). Sibawayh cited evidence for its omission in the fawasill (endings of verses) and rhymes, and others permitted its omission absolutely. The aspect of omitting it, even though it is omitted with the tanwin and al as a substitute for it, is treating the "substituted" like the "substitute."