Tafsir of Ibraheem 14:9

Then, after Musa (peace be upon him) had first explicitly reminded them of the blessings of the Almighty upon them—incorporating within it a mention of the hardships that had befallen them—and secondly commanded them to remember the promises of increase in exchange for gratitude and the warnings of punishment for disbelief, and after he had verified for them the substance of that and warned them on his own behalf against ingratitude, when he perceived from them that which necessitated it, he began to intimidate them by reminding them of what had happened to the past nations.

He said: (Has the news not reached you of those who were before you) so that they might contemplate what befell each of the two parties—the believers and the disbelievers—and thus the intent of Musa (peace be upon him) regarding them might be fulfilled for him. It is also suggested that this is a continuation of his (peace be upon him) statement: (If you disbelieve), etc., acting as an explanation for what was alluded to in the answer regarding the fact that the harm of disbelief returns to the disbeliever, not to the Almighty Himself. It is also said: It is a statement from the Almighty, brought as a completion of His (the Almighty's) saying: (If you are grateful), etc., and an explanation of the severity of His punishment, and the insertion of Musa's (peace be upon him) speech in between is an interruption, and it is as you see. Another view is that it is the beginning of a statement from the Almighty, addressing the nation of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) after He mentioned sending him (the Prophet) with the Quran, and related to them stories of Musa (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) with his nation. Perhaps the specification of reminding them of what befell those mentioned, despite the proximity of others to them, is to indicate that the Almighty's destruction of the oppressors and His victory for the believers is His ancient custom. Among people are those who consider this unlikely.

(The people of Nuh) is a substitute for the relative pronoun or an explanatory appositive; (and ‘Ad) is conjoined to "the people of Nuh"; (and Thamud, and those who came after them)—meaning after those mentioned—is conjoined to "the people of Nuh" and what was conjoined to it. His saying, the Almighty: (None knows them but Allah) is an interpolation, or the relative pronoun is the subject and this sentence is its predicate, and the sentence of the subject and its predicate is an interpolation. The meaning, according to both interpretations, is that they (1) were so numerous that none knows their number except Allah the Almighty. The meaning of the interpolation, according to the first, is: "Has not the news of the vast multitude, whose number cannot be counted, reached you, that you might take a lesson from them?" Verily, in that is a lesson. According to the second, it is a gradation, meaning: "Has not the news of these people and those whose number cannot be counted reached you?" It is as if He is saying: "Leave the details, for there is no hope of enumeration." In this is a subtlety to suggest a combination of both summarization and detail, which is why al-Zamakhshari made it the first of the two interpretations. What is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) is that he said: "Between ‘Adnan and Isma‘il (peace be upon him) there are thirty fathers whose names are not known." From Ibn Mas‘ud (may Allah be pleased with him), it is narrated that when he read this verse, he said: "The genealogists lied," meaning they claim knowledge of lineages, while Allah the Almighty has negated the knowledge thereof from the servants. This is made manifest in it, as it is said.

From this, one knows that the preference of al-Tayyibi for the first interpretation, based on the grounds he provided, is not appropriate. Abu Hayyan objected to the assertion of it being an interpolation by saying that it cannot exist except between two parts where one necessitates the other, and what was mentioned is not like that. It was refuted by stating that there is a connection between what is interpolated; one part necessitates the other because it is possible for the following sentence to be a hal (state) by assuming it. An interpolation occurs between the hal and its owner, so what was mentioned is not contrary to the speech of the grammarians. Even if it is granted that it is not a hal, what they mentioned here is based on the terminology of the scholars of rhetoric (al-Ma‘ani), and they do not stipulate the aforementioned condition; they even permitted the interpolation to be at the end of the speech, as Ibn Hisham explicitly stated in al-Mughni, even though the coming sentence explains what is in the first, so it is connected to it in meaning. The stipulation of a syntactic connection is also not accepted by the grammarians, so reflect upon this.

Abu al-Baqa’ made the sentence (None knows them but Allah)—based on the assumption of the relative pronoun being conjoined to what preceded it—a hal from the pronoun in (after them), and he permitted the start of a new sentence. Perhaps by that, he intended the pronoun established in the preposition and its object, not the pronoun in the genitive case, for the condition of the hal originating from it is absent. On the assumption that the relative pronoun is the subject, he permitted that sentence to be the predicate, and he permitted it to be a hal, while the predicate is His saying, the Almighty: (Their messengers came to them). The majority hold that it is a new sentence to explain their news.

(With clear proofs) i.e., with manifest miracles. Every messenger among them explained the way of truth to his nation and guided them to it to bring them out of darkness into light. (Then they put their hands in their mouths) meaning they gestured with their hands toward their mouths and what they had spoken. (And said: "We disbelieve in that with which you were sent") i.e., according to your claim; these are the clear proofs they displayed as evidence for the truth of their message.

Their intent by "disbelieving" in them is disbelief in their indicating the truth of their message, or [disbelief in] the books and laws. The essence is that they pointed to this answer of theirs, as if they said: "This is our answer to you, we have nothing else," thereby despairing them of [our] belief. This is like what happens in the speech of interlocutors, where they point to the fact that this is the answer, then they state it, or they state it and then point with their hands that this is the answer. The pronoun in (their hands) and (their mouths) refers to the disbelievers, and the hands are literal, and the "putting" is a metaphor for gesturing, which allows for being concurrent, preceding, or following.

Abu Salih said: The intent is that they placed their hands upon their mouths, gesturing by that to the messengers (peace be upon them) to desist and remain silent about their speech, as if they said: "Be silent, for your much speaking will not avail you, and we persist in disbelief and will not cease." How much I do not listen, and you prolong [your speech]. Thus, the pronoun refers to the disbelievers as well, and everything else in the arrangement is literal.

Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Tabarani, and al-Hakim—who authenticated it—narrated from Ibn Mas‘ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that the intent is that they bit their hands in rage out of the intensity of their aversion to seeing the messengers and hearing their speech. So the two pronouns are also as stated previously, and the hand and mouth are literal, and the "putting" is a metonymy for biting. It does not negate the literal meaning that the part bitten is the fingertips, as in His saying, the Almighty: (They bite their fingertips at you out of rage), for whoever bites a part of the hand is said in reality to have bitten the hand.

From Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), it is said that the intent is that they placed their hands on their mouths in astonishment at what the messengers (peace be upon them) had brought. This is like how someone overwhelmed by laughter places their hand on their mouth. The pronouns and everything else in the arrangement are as in the second view.

It is also permitted that the pronoun in (their hands) refers to the disbelievers, and in (their mouths) to the messengers (peace be upon them). In this, there are two possibilities: the first is that they gestured with their hands toward the mouths of the messengers (peace be upon them) to be silent; the other is that they placed their hands on the mouths of the messengers (peace be upon them) to prevent them from speaking. This has been narrated from al-Hasan. The speech could be literal, or it could be a representational metaphor, meaning by the "putting of the hands of the people to the mouths of the messengers" the lack of acceptance of their speech and the refusal to hear it, likened to putting a hand on the mouth of the speaker to silence him. The apparent meaning in al-Bahr necessitates that it is literal, where he said: "That is more eloquent in rejecting and further in insulting the messengers (peace be upon them) and attacking them," and that the pronoun in (their hands) is for the disbelievers and the pronoun in (their mouths) is for the messengers (peace be upon them).

"Hands" (aydi) is the plural of "hand," meaning "blessing," i.e., they rejected the blessings of the messengers (peace be upon them)—which are the greatest of blessings, being their admonitions, advice, and the laws and rulings revealed to them—into their mouths. This is an example for rejecting and denying them, by likening the disbelievers' rejection of that to the rejection of the speech coming out of the mouth, so it was said: "They rejected their hands," i.e., their admonitions, "into their mouths." The intent is the lack of acceptance. It is also said: The intent of "hands" is blessings, and the first pronoun is for the messengers (peace be upon them) as well, but the second pronoun is for the disbelievers, meaning they lied about what they brought with their mouths, i.e., a lie that has no basis. "In" (fi) is in the sense of "with" (bi). Al-Farra' established its usage in that meaning and recited: I desire [fiyha] her—from Laqit and his tribe—but as for Banu Sanbis, I do not desire.

The carrying of "hands" to mean "blessings" is considered weak because its usage in that meaning is rare, to the point that some philologists denied it, even if the correct view is the opposite. What is known for that is ayadi, as in his saying: I will thank ‘Amr if my appointed time is delayed for the favors [ayadi] that were not bestowed, even if they were great. And because "rejecting" and "mouths" suit the rejection of a physical part.

Abu ‘Ubaydah said the two pronouns are for the disbelievers, and the speech is an idiom; meaning they did not believe and did not answer. The Arabs say to a man when he is silent about answering and holds back: "He put his hand in his mouth." A similar thing is from al-Akhfash.

Ibn Qutaybah refuted this by saying that we have not heard anyone among the Arabs say "so-and-so put his hand in his mouth" when he is silent and abandons what he was ordered to do. In this is that both heard it, and he who hears is an argument against he who has not heard. Abu Hayyan said: According to what they both mentioned, this would be a representational metaphor, as if the one withholding from the answer, the one silent about it, placed his hand on his mouth. Al-Tabari refuted it by saying that they did answer with denial because they said: (We disbelieve), etc. It was answered that it is possible the speaker's intent is that they refrained and were silent regarding the satisfying answer that the coming of the messengers (peace be upon them) to them with clear proofs necessitated, which is acknowledgment and belief.

Ibn ‘Atiyyah said: The two pronouns are for the disbelievers, and it is possible to use metaphor in "hands" and intend by it what encompasses types of defense. The meaning is: They rejected all their defense into their mouths, i.e., to what they said with their mouths of denial. The essence is that they found nothing to refute the speech of the messengers (peace be upon them) with, other than pure denial, and he expressed all the defense as "hands," as it is the place of the most intense defense and resistance. It is also said: The intent is that they made their hands in the place of their tongues, in the sense that they harmed the messengers (peace be upon them) with their tongues, just like harm with hands.

What conforms to the context and is testified to by the eloquence of the Revelation is the first view. More than one established that it is the strong view, because when they attempted to deny the messengers (peace be upon them) completely, they combined both action and speech in their denial. That is why the letter fa (then) was brought to warn that they were not given respite, but rather they followed their invitation with denial and began the sentence with "inna" (verily). Following that, according to what is in al-Kashf, is the second view. The flaws in most of the remaining views are not hidden, so reflect.

(And we are indeed in doubt) great (concerning that to which you invite us) from belief and monotheism. By this, and by interpreting (that with which you were sent) as what was mentioned first, the suspicion of contradiction between their certainty of disbelief and this doubt of theirs is dispelled. It is said in refuting this, on the assumption that the objects of disbelief and doubt are the same: that "wa" (and) is in the sense of "or," meaning one of two things is necessary; either we definitely disbelieve in what you were sent with, and if we are not certain, then at the very least we are doubtful about it. Whichever it is, there is no way to admit and believe. It is also said: that disbelief is the lack of belief from one who is in a state where he should have it, so "we disbelieve" means we did not believe; and Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) interpreted it as such, and that does not negate doubt. In al-Bahr, it is stated that they first hastened to disbelief, which is pure denial, then they informed them that they were in doubt, which is hesitation, as if they looked with some consideration that necessitated their shifting from pure denial to hesitation. Or they are two statements from two groups: a group that hastened to denial and disbelief, and another that doubted. Doubt in what the messengers (peace be upon them) brought is disbelief. This is better than its alternative. Talha recited (that to which you invite us) by assimilating the nun of the nominative case into the nun of the pronoun, just as it is assimilated into the nun of protection in such words as atuhajjuni (do you argue with me).

(Arouser of doubt) i.e., causing doubt; from araba-ni, meaning it caused me to be in doubt; or dhi ribah (possessor of doubt), from araba, meaning he became a possessor of doubt, which is the agitation of the soul and its lack of reassurance about a thing. It is an emphatic adjective.