Ibrahim: (22) And Satan said when...
(And Satan said)—the one who misguided both parties and led them along when they reproached and rebuked him in the manner of following leaders—(when the matter was decided)—that is, finalized and completed, which is the Reckoning, when the people of Paradise have entered Paradise and the people of the Fire have entered the Fire—speaking as an orator in the assembly of the wretched from both mankind and jinn.
Ibn Jarir and others recorded from al-Hasan, who said: "On the Day of Resurrection, Iblis will stand as an orator upon a pulpit of fire and say: 'Indeed, Allah promised you the promise of truth...' to the end." According to Muqatil, the disbelievers will gather around him in the Fire to blame him, so he will ascend a pulpit of fire and say this. In some reports, there is that which indicates this happens at the [gathering] place of assembly. Al-Tabarani, Ibn al-Mubarak in al-Zuhd, Ibn Jarir, and Ibn Asakir recorded—albeit with a weak chain—from the hadith of Uqbah ibn Amir, in marfu' form to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), that when the disbelievers see the intercession of the Prophet (peace be upon him) for the believers, they will come to Iblis and say: "The believers have found someone to intercede for them, so stand up and intercede for us, for you are the one who misguided us." He will then rise from his seat—a stench the likes of which no one has ever smelled—and say what Allah the Almighty has narrated.
The meaning of (the promise of truth) is a promise whose truthfulness necessitates its fulfillment, or a promise that has been fulfilled, which is the promise of resurrection and recompense. It is also said: He meant by "the Truth" what is a description of His Essence, meaning: Indeed, Allah the Almighty promised you His promise which does not fail. The apparent meaning is that it describes the promise. In the verse, according to the first interpretation, there is conciseness, meaning: "Allah promised you the promise of truth and fulfilled it for you, and I promised you [a promise of falsehood]—which is that there is no resurrection nor reckoning, and if there were, the idols would intercede for you—(and I failed you)," meaning: what I informed you of did not come to pass, and its falsehood was exposed. It has been used metaphorically here; if it were considered mushakalah (correspondence in wording), it would also be correct.
(And I had no authority over you)—that is, no overpowering force or proof indicating my truthfulness—(except that I invited you)—meaning, except for my inviting you to misguidance. Although this is not of the nature of "authority" in reality, he presented it in that guise and claimed it as such; therefore, the exception is connected. It is from the style of emphasizing a thing by its opposite, like the saying: "And horses, I have confronted them with horses; a greeting between them was a painful blow." It is a form of sarcasm (tahakkum), not a matter of metaphor, simile, or otherwise, according to what has been verified in its place. If sarcasm is not considered in it, the exception would be disconnected, along the lines of the saying: "A land with no companion except the wild donkeys and the camels." Abu Hayyan leaned toward it being disconnected and said: "It is the apparent meaning." The Imam allowed for the possibility of it being connected without considering the element of sarcasm, arguing that the ability to compel a person to something is sometimes through force by the one compelling, and sometimes by strengthening the impulse in his heart through casting whispers into it, and this is a type of authority; as if he said: "I had no authority over you except by way of whispering, not by striking and the like."
(And you responded to me)—that is, you hastened to answer me, as the fa (in fastajabtum) indicates. It is said that the haste is derived from the sin (in istajabtum), for although "responding" (istijabah) is synonymous with "answering" (ijabah), the extra letters denote a sense of abstraction, as if they sought that [misguidance] from themselves, which requires speed—though there is some remoteness in this.
(So do not blame me)—for my promise to you, since it was not by way of compulsion or force, as indicated by the fa. It is said: Do not blame me for my whispering, for he who has openly declared enmity and said: (I will surely sit for them on Your straight path) is not to be blamed for such things. It is read as (fala yalumuni) with a ya, as a shift in speech (iltifat). (But blame yourselves)—for you responded to me by your own choice, arising from your poor disposition when I invited you without proof or evidence, but merely through embellishment and deception, while you did not respond to your Lord when He invited you with the invitation of Truth, accompanied by clear signs and arguments. The accursed one does not intend by this to exonerate himself from being the target of blame entirely, but rather to clarify that they are more deserving of it than he.
In al-Kashshaf, it is mentioned that in this verse is evidence that man is the one who chooses wretchedness or happiness and acquires it for himself, and from Allah there is nothing but enabling, and from Satan there is nothing but embellishment. If the matter were as the Mujbirah (predestinarians) claim, he would have said: "Do not blame me, and do not blame yourselves, for Allah Almighty has decreed disbelief upon you and forced you to it." His reported statement is not invalid such that it cannot be relied upon, otherwise Allah the Almighty would have explained its invalidity and shown His disapproval; moreover, there is no benefit in speaking falsehood in that station. Do you not see how he brought the Truth that is beyond doubt in his saying: (Indeed, Allah promised you...) and his saying: (And I had no authority over you...) etc.?
It has been objected to [the argument] "otherwise He would have explained its invalidity" that this argument turns against the speaker regarding the saying of the arrogant ones: (If Allah had guided us, we would have guided you), as He did not follow it with an invalidation in the manner of the tawrik (equivocation) he claimed; likewise his saying: "Moreover, there is no benefit..." etc. The answer is that the first is not necessarily for that purpose, as you have heard. Furthermore, He has followed it with invalidation in numerous places. It is sufficient that their lie is recounted in that place, for it is recounted there under the delusion that it is beneficial, as Allah Almighty has narrated about them. As for after the matter is decided and the people of Paradise and the people of the Fire have entered the Fire, there is no benefit whatsoever to be deluded by, especially since Satan has no purpose in that. Thus, the cases differ in terms of the speaker, the place, and the verdict.
Rather, the answer is that the people of Truth do not deny that blame is directed at them, and that Allah the Almighty is exalted above that. His conclusive argument and His decree, the Almighty, are the Truth, as they affirm for the servant the "earning power" upon which the axis of obligation rotates, and they have granted it a role in that. Indeed, He, the Almighty, only creates [the servant's] actions according to what he chooses, and their stripping of the "intrinsic effect" from his power does not negate the blame upon them, as explained in its place. What he mentioned regarding "if the matter were..." is based on not distinguishing between the school of the people of Truth—labeled by him as the Mujbirah—and the path of the Mujbirah in reality; the difference is as clear as the morning light.
Furthermore, the apparent meaning of the verse is used as evidence that Satan has no power to strike a human, bend his limbs or joints, or remove his reason, because he denied having authority over them other than whispering. Those who claim the power for such things have answered that the intention of the verse is to negate his having authority in the matter of misguidance except through mere whispering, not to negate his having any authority at all. The context is the primary and most indicative piece of evidence for this. Some have deduced from the verse the invalidation of blind following (taqlid) in matters of creed. Ibn al-Faras said: "This is a sound deduction, because they followed Satan merely upon his claim without demanding from him any proof," so this was narrated about them, encompassing their condemnation.
Furthermore, the apparent meaning is that this invitation from Satan—namely, Iblis—is without an intermediary. While it is difficult to conceive of this at one time for many, it is not far-fetched to say that he has assistants who do as he does, but since it is by his command, he alone undertook what he undertook, and the invitation was attributed to him. Imam al-Razi has a long discussion in the verse which he brings to clarify the method of the invitation and how Satan casts whispers into the human heart; most of it, according to the Hadith scholars and the righteous predecessors, is most similar to the whispers of devils. Perhaps the Tawbah [surah] will lead, if Allah Almighty wills, to the verification of that with the help of Allah the Capable, the Owner.
(I cannot help you)—that is, I cannot rescue you from the torment you are in. It is said: "He sought my help (istasrakhani), so I helped him (asrakhtuhu)," meaning he called for my aid and I aided him. Its origin is from al-surakh (crying out/shouting), and the hamza is for removal, as if the rescuer removes the crying of the one seeking aid. (And you cannot help me)—[from what I am in]. His mentioning of this, despite it not being within the realm of possibility, is an exaggeration in stating that he cannot rescue them, and a notification that he too is afflicted with the same as they are afflicted with, and is in need of rescue; so how could he rescue others? For this reason, he chose the nominal sentence, and the intent is the continuity of the negation, not the negation of continuity. The same is said regarding the emphasis. Thus, the preceding was his answer to their reproach and rebuke, and this is his answer to their seeking his help in warding off the torment that has befallen them.
Yahya ibn Wathab, al-A'mash, and Hamzah read it as (bimusrikhi) with a kasra on the ya, following the root [of the word] to avoid the meeting of two vowel-less consonants. The original was bimusrikhina li, then it was genitively linked (idafa), and the nun of the plural was dropped for the genitive. The quiescent plural ya met the ya of the speaker, and its original is stillness, so it was vocalized with kasra due to the meeting of two quiescent consonants, and assimilated. Many grammarians attacked this reading. Al-Farra' said: "Perhaps it is from the [poor] imagination of the reciters, for few of them were safe from error." Abu Ubayd said: "We consider them mistaken." Al-Akhfash said: "I have not heard this kasra from any Arab or any grammarian." Al-Zajjaj said: "It is considered poor and rejected by all, and there is no basis for it except a weak one." Al-Zamakhshari said: "It is weak," and they cited a poem of unknown origin as evidence: "He said to her, 'Are you [feminine]...' She said to him, 'You are not the one I am pleased with'." It is as if they considered the ya of the genitive to be quiescent and moved it with a kasra according to the principle of meeting two quiescent consonants, but this is incorrect because the ya of the genitive cannot be anything but open if preceded by an alif, such as asaya (my staff). Why then is it [vocalized] when preceded by a ya?
To say that the first ya was treated like a sound letter due to assimilation—as if it were a ya that fell quiescent after a quiescent sound letter—is to resort to analogy, and it is a good analogy; however, widespread usage, which is equivalent to mutawatir (mass-transmitted) reports, renders analogies insignificant. Those who followed these tyrannical ones [the critics] have also made an error in their attack and imitation, for the reading is mutawatir from the predecessors and successors, so it is not permissible to say that it is a mistake, ugly, or poor. A group of scholars has reported that it is a dialect, but its usage is rare.
Qutrub explicitly stated that it is a dialect of the Banu Yarbu'; they vocalize the ya of the speaker with a kasra if another ya precedes it, and they connect it to it, such as alayhi and ladayhi. Sometimes they content themselves with the kasra, which is the dialect of the people of Mosul and many people today. Abu 'Amr—who is an imam of language, an imam of grammar, an imam of recitation, and an authentic Arab—deemed it good. They cited the verse of al-Nabighah: "Upon me, for 'Amr, is a favor after a favor, from his father, which is not stingy," with a kasra on the ya of li (for me). They also recited for it the aforementioned verse, which is by al-Aghlab al-'Ijli. Al-Zamakhshari's ignorance of it, like al-Zajjaj, is not to be paid attention to. His statement: "The ya of the genitive cannot be anything but open," etc., is refuted by the fact that the stillness of the ya after an alif has been reported, and the reciters have read with it in (mahyaya). What he mentioned is also an analogy with a discrepancy, for it is not necessary that because it is vocalized with kasra alongside a ya (which is homogenous with kasra), it must be vocalized with kasra alongside an alif (which is not homogenous with it); therefore, it was opened after it [the alif] for homogeneity. The claim that the origin of this ya is being open in every place is not accepted—how can it be, when it is among the indeclinable words, and the root of indeclinable words is that they are built on stillness?
Some people explained the reading as being based on the dialect of those who add a ya to the ya of the genitive, treating it as the ha of the pronoun and its kaf; for the ha can be connected with a waw if it is vocalized with damma, like lahu and darabahu, and with a ya if it is vocalized with kasra, like bihi. The kaf can also be appended with an addition, as one says a'taytuka-hu and a'taytuka-hi, except that the ya was dropped here, being satisfied with the kasra. Al-Basir said: The ya was vocalized with kasra so that it would correspond to the kasra of the hamza in his saying: (Indeed, I have disbelieved), because he intended continuation (wasl) rather than stopping and starting with that, and the kasra is more indicative of continuation than the fatha. This is debatable. In short, there is no doubt about the correctness of that reading, and it is an eloquent dialect. It has been reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) spoke it in the hadith of the beginning of the revelation and his description of his condition to Waraqah ibn Nawfal (may Allah be pleased with him). Thus, denying it is pure ignorance.
By his saying: (Indeed, I have disbelieved), he meant: I have disbelieved today (in your associating me [with Allah] before)—that is, before this day, meaning in the worldly life.
(Ma) is a verbal particle, and (min) is related to ashraktumuni, meaning: I have disbelieved in your associating me with Allah the Almighty in obedience, because they used to obey him in acts of evil just as Allah is obeyed in acts of good. Thus, the "association" is a metaphor by likening the obedience [to him] to [the worship of] Him, and placing it in His position, or because when they associated the idols and their like with Him by his [Satan's] causing them to do so, it is as if they associated him [Satan]. Disbelief is a figure of speech for disavowal, as in His saying, the Almighty: (And on the Day of Resurrection they will deny your association). The intent of the accursed one is that if your associating me with Allah the Almighty is what tempted you to hope for my support for you, and made you imagine that you have a right over me, then I have disavowed that and I do not praise it; so no relationship remains between me and you. "Today," as we mentioned, is the apparent meaning, so the speech is interpreted as the act of disavowing them on the Day of Resurrection. Al-Nasafi allowed that it could be an informing that he disavowed them in the worldly life, in which case (before) would be related to kafartu or disputed between the two.
More than one [scholar] allowed that (ma) could be relative, meaning man (who), as was said in their saying: "Glory be to Him who subjugated them to us," and the pronoun of reference is omitted, and (before) is related to kafartu, meaning: I disbelieved before, when I refused to prostrate to Adam (peace be upon him), in that which you associated me with—that is, [when] you made me a partner to Him in obedience, which is Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. Thus, ashrakta is derived from sharakta zaydan, for the purpose of taking a second object. The speech, according to this, is an admission by the accursed one of the antiquity of his disbelief and a clarification that his sin preceded them; so there is no rescue for them from him. It is, in meaning, a justification for his not helping them. The Imam claimed that it is to negate the effect of the whispering, as if he is saying: "My whispering had no effect on your disbelief, evidenced by the fact that I disbelieved before you fell into disbelief because of another whispering, otherwise an infinite regression (tasalsul) would result." It is proven by this that the cause of falling into disbelief is something other than whispering. The apparent meaning, according to this, would be that it should have been presented before his saying: (I cannot help you...); there is no point for its delay that satisfies the mind. Some of them made it a justification for his not helping them, which is a matter with no basis, as there is no possibility for that such that it would need justification. It is said: Because justifying his not helping them with his disbelief gives the illusion that they are in a state of [deserving] it were it not for the obstacle from his side.
This was objected to by saying that such ambiguity exists in the first interpretation; they are the disbelievers for whom the intercession of the intercessors is of no benefit. In al-Bahr, the opinion of it being relative was tracked by saying that it entails applying (ma) to Allah the Almighty, and the more correct [view] regarding it is that it is not applied to any of those who possess knowledge. The (ma) in "Glory be to Him who subjugated..." can be taken as a verbal particle, with an implied genitive, i.e., "Glory be to the Creator or the Facilitator of your subjugation to us." Al-Tibi said: (Ma) is not used for one who possesses knowledge except in consideration of the attributive nature within him and the magnification of his status. The example is according to that, meaning: "Glory be to the One of Great Status who subjugated you to men, with your guile and deception." That (ma) is relative, meaning the idol—i.e., "I have disbelieved in the idol with which you associated me"—is something not to be paid attention to.
(Indeed, the wrongdoers will have a painful punishment)
(22) The apparent meaning is that it is certainly a continuation of Iblis's speech to cut off the hopes of the disbelievers for aid and assistance. Allah the Almighty recounted what he will say at that time so that it might be a warning to the listeners, and an urging for them to consider their end and prepare for what is inevitable, and to imagine that station where Satan says what he says, so that they may fear and do what will benefit them there. It is also said: It is from the speech of the guards [of Hell] on that day. It is also said: It is a commencement of speech from His side, the Almighty.
