Tafsir of Ibraheem 14:35

(And when Ibrahim said...) The phrase is an object for an omitted verb, meaning: "Mention that time." The intention is to remind [people] of what occurred therein, in the same manner as has been said regarding similar passages.

(My Lord, make this city)—meaning Makkah, may Allah the Exalted honor it—(secure), that is: possessing security. The form fā‘il is used here to indicate attribution, like lābin (one who has milk) and tāmir (one who has dates), because the one who is truly secure is the inhabitant of the city. It is also permissible for the attribution to be figurative, as in the attribution of a quality to the location, such as "a flowing river."

The difference between this passage and the one in [Surah] al-Baqarah, where He says: (My Lord, make this a secure city), is that in the first, the Prophet—peace be upon him—prayed for it to be made one of the cities whose inhabitants are secure and do not fear; whereas in the second, he prayed for it to be removed from a state of fear—which it had previously been in—to its opposite, which is security. It is as if he said: "It is a city of fear, so make it secure." This is how it is presented in al-Kashshaf. Its verification is that when you say: "Make this a beautiful ring," you have pointed to the raw material, requesting that a beautiful ring be forged from it; but when you say: "Make this ring beautiful," you have intended the beauty rather than the state of the ring. This is because the pivot of the benefit is the second object, for it is in the position of a predicate. To this returns what has been said regarding the difference: in the first, there is a request for two things—the status of a city and [the state of] security—while here, there is a request for a single thing, which is security.

This interpretation has been criticized on the grounds that it necessitates that the request for its status as a city preceded the request mentioned in this Surah, and that it would imply the first prayer went unanswered. Al-Kashf states: The way out of this is either [by saying] that what was requested first was its suitability for habitation, such that its inhabitants would be secure in most circumstances—as is the norm in cities—for it had previously been unsuitable for that in any way, as is well known in the story. Second, it refers to the removal of an incidental fear, such as that which occasionally afflicts even secure cities. Or, it may be understood as a plea for permanence, treating it as if it were devoid of security by way of hyperbole. Or, that one of the two [prayers] refers to worldly security and the other to the security of the Hereafter. Or, that the second prayer was issued before the first was answered, and mentioning it with this phrasing is an allusion to the fact that the actual request is security, and the status of being a city is merely a prelude; it is not that after the answer it became afflicted with fear. It is as if he framed his speech on a progression: he first requested that it be a secure city among the cities that are such, then, to emphasize the request, he treated it as if it were truly fearful and requested security, because the prayer of the distressed is closer to being answered. Hence, the Prophet—peace be upon him—followed it by saying: (I have settled...), etc. This is based on the multiplicity of the requests.

If it is interpreted as a single request where the narration is repeated, as some have deemed likely—while others have deemed the first interpretation likely due to the difference in expression in the two locations—then the manifest meaning is that the requested object is both things. The first was narrated [in al-Baqarah], and here it is confined to narrating the request for security because the request for the status of a city has already been narrated by his saying: (So make the hearts of the people incline toward them), since what is requested by their inclining toward them is companionship—as has been narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them—and not just for Hajj. That is the very essence of requesting the status of a city, and it has been narrated with other phrasing according to what some of the great scholars have chosen. Or [it is narrowed to security] because the blessing of security is more deserving of gratitude, so mentioning it is more appropriate in the context of reproaching the disbelievers for neglecting it, as has been said.

This verse and those following it—namely, the story of Ibrahim, peace be upon him—as stipulated by the author of al-Kashf, are brought by way of objection, confirming what he had urged regarding gratitude through faith and righteous deeds, and warning against their opposites, while incorporating into it the invitation of these aversive ones with a language of gentleness and drawing near, confirming all that preceded with the utmost emphasis.

In Irshad al-‘Aql al-Salim, it is stated that the intention behind it is to confirm what preceded of the Prophet’s—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—astonishment, by clarifying another facet of the people’s crimes: that they disbelieved in the blessings specific to them after they had disbelieved in the general blessings, and they disobeyed their father Ibrahim, peace be upon him, when he settled them in Makkah—may Allah increase it in honor—and [commanded them to] establish prayer, avoid the worship of idols, and show gratitude for the blessings of Allah the Exalted. He asked [Allah] to make it a secure city, to provide them with fruits, and to make the hearts of people incline toward them. Allah the Exalted answered his prayer and made it a secure sanctuary to which the fruits of all things are brought, yet they disbelieved in those momentous blessings, exchanged the place of destruction [for the Sacred City], and set up rivals to Allah the Exalted, committing the grave evils they committed.

(And keep me and my sons)—that is, distance me and them—(away from worshipping idols)—that is, from the worship of them. Al-Jahdari and ‘Isa al-Thaqafi read (wa-ajnibnī) with a severed hamza and a kasra under the nun, in the measure of akrimnī. Both are the dialect of the people of Najd; they say jannabahū (lightened/unaugmented) and ajnabahū (form IV). As for the people of Hijaz, they say jannabahū (with a shadda). The origin of tajannub (avoidance) is for a person to be on a side other than that which someone else is on, then it was used to mean distance.

The intention here, according to al-Zajjaj, is a request for steadfastness and continuity in that, meaning: "Keep us steadfast on what we are upon of monotheism and the religion of Islam, and [keep us in] distance from idol worship." Otherwise, the Prophets are infallible regarding disbelief and the worship of anything other than Allah the Exalted. The Imam criticized this, saying that since it is known that He, glory be to Him, keeps the Prophets—peace be upon them—steadfast on avoidance, what is the benefit in asking for steadfastness? Then he said: "The correct view in my estimation has two aspects: First, that although he—peace be upon him—knew that Allah the Exalted protects him from idol worship, he mentioned it as a way of humbling himself and demonstrating the need and poverty toward the grace of Allah, the Exalted and Almighty, in all matters. Second, that the Sufis say: Shirk (polytheism) is of two types: manifest, which is what the polytheists profess, and hidden, which is the heart’s attachment to intermediaries and manifest causes; pure monotheism is the disconnection of the gaze from everything other than Allah the Exalted. It is possible that the intention of the Prophet—peace be upon him—in this prayer was for protection from this [hidden] shirk."

This latter point is countered by saying that the question returns to him, in my estimation, because gazing toward "the other" mimics the shirk that the polytheists profess according to the Sufis. One of them said: "If a desire for other than You were to cross my mind, mistakenly, I would judge myself an apostate." I do not think they deem this permissible for the Prophets, peace be upon them. Since the speech is built upon what they established, it is said: What is the benefit in asking for protection from that, when the Prophets—peace be upon them—are protected from it? The correct answer, in my view, is what has been said: that the infallibility of the Prophets—peace be upon them—is not due to a natural factor within them, but rather by the sheer granting of success by Allah the Exalted to them and His grace upon them; therefore, requesting it is valid. In some traditions, it is reported that Allah the Exalted said to Musa, peace be upon him: "O Musa, do not feel secure against My plotting until you have crossed the Path (al-Sirat)."

You know that those who were given glad tidings of Paradise by the truthful, the believed [Prophet]—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—would frequently ask Allah the Exalted for Paradise, even though it was guaranteed for them. Perhaps the source of that is what was said to Musa, peace be upon him. So reflect on this.

The intended meaning of his sons—peace be upon him—is those who were from his loins. One should not imagine that Allah did not answer his prayer because the Quraish—who are of his offspring—worshipped idols, until one is forced to answer with what some have said: that the meaning is everyone who was present at the time of the prayer among his children, and there is no doubt that his prayer—peace be upon him—was answered for them. Or, that his prayer was answered for some and not others, and there is no deficiency in that, as the Imam said. Sufyan ibn ‘Uyayna said: "The intended meaning of his sons encompasses all his progeny—peace be upon him—and he claimed that none of the children of Isma‘il—peace be upon him—worshipped an idol (sanam); rather, every tribe had a stone they set up, and they would say: 'This is a stone,' and the House is a stone, and they would circumambulate it and call it al-dawwar. For this reason, more than one scholar disliked saying 'he circled (dāra) the House,' but rather said 'he performed tawaf (tāfa) around it.'" Mujahid also interpreted the 'sons' in this way and said: "None of the children of Ibrahim—peace be upon him—worshipped an idol (sanam), but some of them worshipped a wathan (an object of worship)." He differentiated between the two by saying that a sanam is a depicted figure, while a wathan is an undepicted figure.

I wonder how it escaped these two great scholars what is in the Quran of crushing verses that denounce the Quraish for the worship of idols! The Imam, after reporting the words of Mujahid, said: "This is not strong, because he—peace be upon him—did not intend by this prayer anything other than the worship of other than Allah, and an idol is like a wathan in that regard." The same objection applies to Ibn ‘Uyayna. From here, it was said against him: "In what he mentioned is a return to what he fled from, because what they were doing was also the worship of other than Allah." Some of our companions used this verse as evidence that distancing from disbelief and drawing near to faith comes from none but Allah the Exalted, because he—peace be upon him—only requested the distancing from idol worship from Him, the Exalted. Attributing this to "divine kindnesses" (altaf) has its own complications.