Tafsir of Ibraheem 14:4

(And We did not send) — i.e., among the nations that passed before you, as will be mentioned, if Allah wills, in summary — (any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people) — that is, dressed in the language of those to whom he was sent, among the nations that were agreed upon a single language, regardless of whether he was raised among them or not. It is said: rather, in the language of the people to whom he belongs and among whom he was raised. The limitation is not invalidated by Lot, peace be upon him, for he married into them and resided with them. As for Jonah, peace be upon him, he was from the people to whom he was sent, as they have stated, so there is no need to say that this is with regard to the overwhelming majority. Perhaps the most appropriate view is what we have mentioned.

Abu al-Sammal, Abu al-Hawra’, and Abu ‘Imran al-Jawni recited bi-lusan (with the sin sakinah), following the pattern of dhikr; it is a dialect of Lisan [used by] Quraysh and Riyash. The author of al-Lawami‘ said: It is specific to "language," while lisan refers to both language and the [physical] organ. Ibn ‘Atiyyah held this view. Abu Raja’, Abu al-Mutawakkil, and al-Jahdari recited bi-lusun (with the lam and sin dammah), which is the plural of lisan, like ‘imad and ‘umud. It was also recited bi-lusn (with the lam dammah and sin sakinah), as a contraction of lusun, like rusul and rusl.

(In order that he might make clear) — that messenger — (to them) — to those people to whom he was sent — (what they are charged with), so they may receive it from him with ease and speed, and thus comply without need for translation. Since this rule did not apply to our master Muhammad, may Allah bless him and all his brother messengers, due to the universality of his mission and the encompassment of his message over the black and the red, the jinn and mankind, despite their differing languages—and because the multiplicity of the structure of the Book revealed to him, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, corresponding to the multiplicity of the languages of the nations, would have invited contention, discord, and the interference of the hands of distortion, while the independence of some of that [content] in its miraculous nature would be a target for the cynical, and the agreement of all upon it would be close to compulsion, which negates accountability—and because the explanation and interpretation had been achieved, Wisdom—which signals Majesty and the exaltedness of rank, and yields benefits that do not require explanation—dictated otherwise. Moreover, the need for translation multiplies with multiplicity, for it is necessary for every group to know the compatibility of all [parts] with the precision of one arrow-feather against another, without contradiction, even in a single detail; this can only be achieved by someone who translates for all, whether as one or several, and that entails impossibility.

Then, since the most noble of peoples and those most deserving of his call, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, were his own people among whom he was raised, and their language is the best of languages, the Clear Book was revealed in a clear Arabic tongue, and its rulings spread among all nations. This is how the Sheikh of Islam and the Muslims established it, and it is excellent in its place. However, some kept the speech in its generality so as to include the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and intended by "the people" those whom that messenger is from and among whom he was sent. The intended meaning of his people, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is all the Arabs. Abu Shamah narrated this in al-Murshid from al-Sijistani, and he argued with the saying of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: "The Quran was revealed in seven ahruf," and there is an obvious scrutiny regarding this.

Ibn Qutaybah said: The intended meaning is Quraysh, and the Quran was only revealed in their language. It is said: It was only revealed in the language of Mudar specifically, due to the saying of ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him: "The Quran was revealed in the language of Mudar." Some specified, in what Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr narrated, seven of them: Hudhayl, Kinanah, Qays, Dabbah, Tamim, al-Rabab, Asad ibn Khuzaymah, and Quraysh. Abu ‘Ubayd narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with both, that he said: "It was revealed in the language of the two Ka‘bs: the Ka‘b of Quraysh and the Ka‘b of Khuza‘ah." It was said: "How so?" He replied: "Because the home was one," meaning Khuza‘ah were the neighbors of Quraysh, so their language became easy for them. It came from Abu Salih from him that he said: "It was revealed in seven languages, five of which were in the language of the ‘ulya (upper) Hawazin, and they are called the ‘ulya of Hawazin." From here, Abu ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ala’ said: "The most eloquent of the Arabs are the ‘ulya of Hawazin and the sufla (lower) Tamim," meaning Banu Darim.

The one who adopts the view of al-Sijistani says: In the Quran, there is what was revealed in the languages of Himyar, Kinanah, Jurhum, Azd Shanu’ah, Madh-hij, Khath‘am, Qays ‘Aylan, Sa‘d al-‘Ashirah, Kindah, ‘Udhrah, Hadramawt, Ghassan, Muzaynah, Lakhm, Judham, Hanifah, al-Yamamah, Saba’, Sulaym, ‘Amarah, Tayy, Khuza‘ah, ‘Uman, Tamim, Anmar, the Ash‘aris, al-Aws, al-Khazraj, and Madyan. Abu al-Qasim gave examples for all of that. Abu Bakr al-Wasiti mentioned that there are fifty languages in the Quran and listed them with examples, though he mentioned that there is also non-Arabic in it: Persian, Nabatean, Abyssinian, Berber, Syriac, Hebrew, and Coptic. The one who follows the view of Ibn Qutaybah says: Whatever is attributed to other than Quraysh, assuming its attribution is correct, is something that accords with their language. Abu Shamah narrated from some of the scholars that he said: "It was revealed initially in the language of Quraysh and those of the eloquent Arabs who neighbored them, then it was permitted for the rest of the Arabs to recite it in their languages which they were accustomed to using, such as their differences in wording and i‘rab (inflection); none of them were charged with moving from their language to another due to the hardship and because of the tribal pride they possessed, and to facilitate the intended meaning." But you know that this permission did not persist.

The fact that the immediate understanding of "his people," peace be upon him, refers to Quraysh is something I do not think anyone disputes, followed in immediacy by the Arabs. In al-Bahr, it is stated that the reason for the revelation of the verse is that Quraysh said: "Why are all the books foreign, and this is Arabic?" And this, if correct, is apparent in its generality. Furthermore, it does not follow from the fact that his language is the language of Quraysh or the Arabs that his mission, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is exclusive to them, even if a sect of the Jews called the ‘Isawiyyah claimed the mission was exclusive to the Arabs because of this. The wisdom of its revelation in their language is too evident to be hidden. It is said: The pronoun in "his people" refers to Muhammad, may Allah be pleased with him, known from the context, for as Ibn Abi [Hatim] narrated from Sufyan al-Thawri: No revelation descended except in Arabic, then every prophet translated it for his people. It is said: Gabriel, peace be upon him, used to translate it, and this is attributed to al-Kalbi. The flaw in this is that if the clarification does not occur except after translation, the goal of what was mentioned is missed. The pronoun in "to them" refers to the people, without dispute, and they are those clarified to by translation. In al-Kashshaf, it is stated that this is not correct, because the pronoun in "to them" refers to the people, and they are the Arabs; thus, it would lead to Allah, the Exalted, having revealed the Torah, for example, in Arabic to clarify [it] to the Arabs, and that is a corrupt meaning. al-Tayyibi attempted to refute this by saying the pronoun refers to every specific people according to the indication of the context. The answer, as in al-Kashf, is that it does not defend against the ambiguity which is contrary to the requirement of the situation.

Some people argued with this verse that languages are conventional (istilahiyyah) and not divine/pre-ordained (tawqifiyyah). They said: Because tawqif (divine setting) does not occur except by the sending of messengers, and the verse has indicated that the sending of every messenger is only in the language of his people, which requires the prior existence of languages before the sending of the messenger. If so, the occurrence of those languages by tawqif is impossible, so they must have occurred by convention. End quote.

It is answered: We do not concede that tawqif is dependent on the sending of messengers, for it is possible for Allah, the Exalted, to create in the rational beings knowledge that the words were set by a setter for such-and-such. It does not follow from this that the rational being is necessarily knowledgeable of Allah, the Exalted; rather, what would necessitate that is if He, the Glorified, created in the rational beings necessary knowledge that He, the Exalted, is the setter—and where is one from the other? Moreover, there is no harm in accepting that Allah, the Exalted, created this necessary knowledge, and what harm is there in His, the Glorified, existence being known by necessity to some rational beings? The claim that this invalidates accountability in its generality is not accepted, and in its restriction to ma‘arrah (shame/fault) it is accepted and harmless.

(Then Allah sends astray whom He wills) — that is, He creates within him straying due to the existence of causes leading to it in him. It is said: He abandons him, so He does not grant him lutf (divine grace/gentleness) because He knows that lutf will not benefit him. (And He guides [whom He wills]) — He creates guidance or grants lutf to (whom He wills) — [to guide] because of the causes leading to that within him. The iltifat (shift) to attributing the two actions to the Majestic Name is to magnify their status and to prepare the ground for the cause of each of them.

The fa (then) is said to be fasiha (eloquent), like its counterpart in His, the Exalted, saying: "Then We said: Strike the stone with your staff, and it gushed forth." It is as if it were said: "So they clarified it to them, then Allah, the Exalted, sent astray whom He willed to send astray, and guided whom He willed to guide, according to what His, the Exalted, Perfect Wisdom dictated." The omission [of the clarification] is to indicate that the hastening of every messenger to what he was commanded and the flow of each of the two actions according to its course is a confirmed matter, independent of mention and explanation. In al-Kashf, the mode of ta‘qib (sequence) from the preceding is like its mode in His, the Exalted, saying: "He sends astray many by it, and guides many by it," in the sense that "We sent the Book for clarification, so among them are those whom We benefited with that clarification, and among them are those whom We made a proof against." The fa on this view is tafsiliyyah (explanatory).

Shifting to the future tense is for visualizing the scene or for indicating renewal and continuity, since the clarification from the messengers, peace be upon them, was renewed as they succeeded one another. The precedence of sending astray over guidance, as some researchers have said, is either because [the former] is keeping what was as it was, while guidance is the creation of what was not, or for emphasis in clarifying that there is no effect of the clarification and admonition from the messengers, peace be upon them, and that the orbit of the matter is only His, the Exalted's, will, by implying that the sequence of straying is faster than the sequence of receiving guidance. This confirms what preceded regarding the restriction of bringing [mankind] out of darknesses into the light by the permission of their Lord. (And He is the All-Mighty) — so He is not overcome in His will— (the All-Wise) — so He does not will what He wills except for a perfect wisdom.

In this, as in al-Bahr and others, is that what was delegated to the messengers, peace be upon them, is only the conveying and clarifying of the path of truth, but as for guidance and showing the way to it, that is in the Hand of Allah, the Exalted; He does what He wills and decrees what He desires. Furthermore, this verse is apparent in the school of the People of the Sunnah that straying and guidance are by His, the Glorified, creation. The Manzilah has mentioned several interpretations for it, and the Imam has a long discussion on it, if you desire it, return to it.