Tafsir of Al-Hijr 15:8

"We do not send down the angels" (ma nanzilu al-mala'ikah)—the nun indicates the verb is active, attributed to the Majesty (Allah), referring to the act of sending down (tanzil). This is the recitation of Hafs, the two brothers (Hamza and Al-Kisa'i), and Ibn Masraf. Abu Bakr from ‘Asim and Yahya ibn Wathab recited it as tunazzalu al-mala'ikah—with the ta dammah and the nun and za fathah, in the passive voice, with al-mala'ikah in the nominative case as the deputy subject (na'ib al-fa'il). The two Harami reciters (Nafi‘ and Ibn Kathir) and the rest of the seven recited it as tanazzalu al-mala'ikah—with the ta and za fathah, based on the root tatanazzalu with two tas, one of which was dropped for lightness, with al-mala'ikah in the nominative as the agent. Retaining the verb in its literal sense is better than interpreting it as the simple verb nazala. Zayd ibn ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with both) recited it as ma nazala—past tense, lightened, in the active voice, with al-mala'ikah as the agent.

Al-Baydawi based his interpretation on the verb being yanzilu with a ya, in the active voice attributed to Allah, and al-mala'ikah in the accusative case as the object. He was challenged on this, as no one among the ten reciters read it this way, nor is this reading found even among the irregular (shadhdh) recitations, and it contradicts his own methodology in his commentary. Perhaps he (may Allah have mercy on him) deemed it holy.

This speech is directed by Him (subhanahu) to His Prophet (peace be upon him) as a response to the statement attributed to them (the disbelievers) and a rebuttal to their false demand, which stemmed from pure fanaticism and stubbornness. Because the situation demanded an urgent response, He placed this rebuttal before the response to the beginning of their statement—that is, His saying "Verily, it is We," etc. The reason for moving away from addressing their words literally in the context of their request (e.g., by saying, "We will not bring them to you") is to signal that they erred in their request. The angels, due to their exalted rank, are too high to be subjected to the mere act of "bringing," which encompasses the movement from one location to another—or even from a lower to a higher place—and to have their movements directed by those disbelievers, or to come under the sovereignty of any human being. Rather, what befits their status is the descent (nuzul) from their high station, and that this occurs by way of "sending down" (tanzil) from the side of the Majestic Lord. This was stated by Shaykh al-Islam.

It is said: Perhaps this is a response to what might have crossed the noble heart (peace be upon him) when they requested the bringing of the angels—wishing for their conversion—so the mention of tanzil appears as a response, though it is not outwardly apparent, as is not hidden.

"Except by truth" (illa bil-haqq), meaning: except in a sending down characterized by the manner that wisdom necessitates. The ba is for concomitance (mulabasah). The prepositional phrase is in the place of an adjective for the deleted verbal noun (masdar), acting as an exception that is hollow (istithna' mufragh). Some permit it to be a state (hal) from the agent or the object. Abu al-Baqa’ allowed the ba to be for causation (sababiyyah), attached to nanzilu; this is hinted at in the statement of Ibn ‘Atiyyah (to come, if Allah wills). The former is better.

The requirement of legislative and formative wisdom, as is said, is that angels should not be sent down in human form; such a sending down would cause confusion, as Allah (Ta'ala) said: "And if We had made him an angel, We would have made him a man, and We would have obscured for them what they obscure" (6:9). This points to the negation of achieving the purpose and the lack of benefit in doing so.

"And they would not have been reprieved" (wa ma kanu idha munzarin). This indicates the occurrence of harm and the result being the opposite of what was desired. It is as if it is a conjunction to a hidden phrase necessitated by the preceding discourse, as if it were said: "We do not send down the angels upon them except in the form of men, because that is what wisdom necessitates; thus, confusion occurs, and they do not benefit. And if We sent them down, they would not be reprieved"—meaning, they would be harmed by their being sent down because We would inevitably destroy them, and We would not delay them. For it has been Our custom with the nations before them that We never brought them a sign they requested but that the punishment followed in its wake if they did not believe. We have already known that of them. The goal is to negate any validity to their request to bring them, in the most complete manner, by pointing to its lack of benefit first, and explicitly stating its harm second.

It is said: One should supply the conjoined clause as: "they will not believe." It is as if it were said: "We do not send down the angels except in the form of men, because wisdom necessitates that, so they will not believe, and they would not be reprieved." There is something in the soul regarding this and what preceded it.

Some investigators stated: The meaning is that We do not send down the angels except accompanied by the manner of truth—the accompaniment of the tanzil—according to what wisdom requires and the divine custom dictates. What they requested regarding the tanzil to bear witness for them—given who they are and their status in realities—scarcely falls under validity or wisdom at all. That belongs to the category of tanzil by revelation, which is hardly opened to anyone other than the noble prophets (peace be upon them) among all believers, so how could it be for such wretched disbelievers? What falls under wisdom regarding them, generally, is the tanzil for punishment and annihilation, as was done with their counterparts among the nations of the past. If that were done, they would have been utterly annihilated, and they would not have been delayed, like the rest of the mocking, denouncing nations. Despite their deserving of that, the Pen of Decree has decreed the delay of their punishment until the Day of Resurrection, as was summarized in the previous verses. The barrier of wisdom stood between them and their annihilation because of the knowledge that they would increase in punishment and that some of their offspring would believe; the inclusion of the faith of some of them in the string of wisdom is thwarted by their persistence in disbelief and stubbornness. So "they would not be" is the response to a hidden condition—i.e., if We had sent them down, they would not have been...

This was challenged: It is more consistent with the saying of the Almighty, "And if We had made him an angel, We would have made him a man," that the manner which the tanzil must be accompanied by, for the sake of their purpose, is their being in the form of men. That is not from the category of tanzil by revelation, which they would not have anyway, so his argument is not complete. There is a discussion in this, as is not hidden.

Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and others narrated from Mujahid that the interpretation of al-haqq here is "the message" or "the punishment." The verse was guided based on that toward this interpretation: the meaning is "We do not send down the angels except with the message or the punishment." If We sent them down upon them, they would not be reprieved, because sending them down with the message is something that would not happen; thus, it is determined that the tanzil would be with punishment. Al-Mawardi mentioned the limitation to "the message," and it is narrated from Al-Hasan the limitation to "the punishment." Similar to this is what is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas, that the meaning is "We do not send down the angels except with the Truth, which is death, in which there is no bringing forward or delaying."

Ibn ‘Atiyyah said: The Truth is what is incumbent and becomes due of revelation and the benefits that Allah (Ta'ala) willed for His servants. The meaning is: "We do not send down the angels except with a binding truth of revelation and benefit, not by your request." Also, if We had sent them down, you would not have been reprieved after that from punishment, because it is Our custom to destroy the nations who request things when We bring them what they requested. There is much to say in this.

Al-Zamakhshari said: The meaning is, "Not a sending down accompanied by wisdom and benefit, and there is no wisdom in them coming to you openly where you see them and they testify to the truthfulness of the Prophet (peace be upon him), because they would then be believing by compulsion." This is based on the premise that sending them down in their true form is the [only] kind.

Al-Baydawi made the obstacle to wisdom the sending of them down in human form, saying: "There is no wisdom in them coming to you in forms that you see, for it would only add to your confusion."

Some said: The intent is that the sending down of the angels occurs only with Truth and the attainment of benefit by their sending down. Allah (Ta'ala) has known from the state of these disbelievers that if the angels were sent down to them, they would remain persistent in their disbelief, so their sending down would be a futile, invalid act, not "Truth."

Some investigators refuted these three views by noting that while each of them fails to account for the severity of the coming consequence, it does not necessitate from the assumption of any of those things the hastening of the punishment that His (subhanahu) statement "and they would not have been reprieved" implies. Some people have taken great pains to justify this necessity based on some of these opinions.

Some chose the meaning of al-haqq to be "destruction," and the sentence thereafter is the response to a hidden question. It is as if, when it was said, "We do not send down the angels except with destruction, for that is what befits the likes of them among the obstinate," it was asked, "Then let it be so." The response was that if We did that, "they would not have been reprieved"—meaning they were already being reprieved, as summarized before in His (subhanahu) saying: "Leave them to eat and enjoy and be diverted by hope; they will come to know."

The conclusion of the response, according to this view, is that what they requested regarding the bringing of the angels to testify to the truthfulness of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is something that they would not have, because what our wisdom requires and our custom with the likes of them is only tanzil with destruction, not with testimony. Wisdom does not necessitate it, and custom has not proceeded in that way. Because if it happened with the angels in their true form, faith in the unseen would not be achieved, nor would the choice which is the sphere of accountability be realized. And if it were in human form, confusion would arise, and its existence would be like its absence, leading to an infinite regress (tasalsul). What prevents tanzil with destruction, as was done with their counterparts among the obstinate, is that We have made them reprieved. If We had sent down the angels and destroyed them, it would return as a contradiction to what We have established according to the wisdom We know in it.

It is said: In guiding the verse on the assumption that their request for the angels was for their own punishment: the meaning is that We do not send down the angels for punishment except in a tanzil accompanied by what wisdom necessitates. If We had sent them down as they requested, that would not have been accompanied by what wisdom necessitates, because wisdom required delaying their punishment until the Day of Resurrection. Since their sending down for punishment would be contrary to wisdom—a type of suggestion that they did not deserve punishment—the discourse shifted from what the outward appearance necessitates to what the noble arrangement is upon. It is as if it were said: "If We had sent them down, they would not have been reprieved," and that does not conform to wisdom. Contemplate all of that; Allah (Ta'ala) will take charge of your guidance.

As for the word idhan, Sibawayh said in Al-Kashshaf that it is a response and a penalty (jaza'), because the speech is a response to them and a penalty for a hidden condition—i.e., "if We sent them down." He made its provision of this meaning explicit. Al-Shalubin attributed this to continuity and labored over it, and Abu ‘Ali to the prevalent usage. With him, it remains purely for the response.

It is a simple particle according to the majority. A group went to the view that it is a noun/adverb, and its origin is the adverbial idha, to which a tanwin was attached as a substitute for the clause it is annexed to, and it was transferred to the sense of a penalty, so the meaning of connection and causality remained in it. Al-Khalil went to the view that it is a particle formed from idh and an, and the ruling of the particle came to dominate it, and the vowel of the hamza was transferred to the dhal, then it was deleted. This transfer was made mandatory. So the meaning would be: if a speaker says, "I will visit you," and you say "idhan [then] I will visit you," you mean "my visit is occurring at that time," and one does not speak in this way.

Abu ‘Ali ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Majid al-Zaydi went to the view that it is a compound of idha and an, and both give what each one gives—it gives the connection like idha and the accusative inflection like an, then the hamza of an was deleted, then the alif of idha due to the meeting of two vowelless letters.

The outward meaning is that if a condition were assumed in the speech, it would be for mere emphasis. They included in that the Almighty’s saying: "And if you followed their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you indeed, then..." etc. It is reported from Al-Kafiji that he said regarding such cases: "This idhan is not the well-known word; rather, it is the conditional idha whose clause—to which it is annexed—is deleted and replaced by the tanwin, as in yawma'idhin." He has a predecessor in this; Al-Zarkashi said in Al-Burhan after mentioning it: Idha has two meanings. Some later scholars mentioned a third, which is that it is a compound of idha (the adverb of past time) and a clause after it—either in reality or estimation—but it was deleted for lightness and replaced by tanwin, as in their saying hina'idhin. It is not the one that puts the imperfect verb in the accusative, because that [particle] is specific to it, while this one is not; rather, it enters upon the past tense, like idhan la-amsaktum, and upon the noun, like wa innakum idhan la-mina al-muqarrabin. He then said: "This meaning was not mentioned by the grammarians, but it is an analogy of what they said regarding idh."

In At-Tadhkirah, Abu Hayyan mentioned that ‘Ilm al-Din told him that Qadi Taqi al-Din ibn Razin was of the view that the tanwin of idhan is a substitute for the deleted clause, and it is not a statement of a grammarian. Al-Juni said: "I think it is permissible for you to say to someone who says, 'I have come to you,' idhan ukrimuka [then I will honor you], in the nominative, with the meaning: 'If you come to me, I will honor you.' So 'you come to me' was deleted and replaced by tanwin, and the alif fell due to the meeting of two vowelless letters." The accusative inflection that the grammarians agreed upon is for applying it to a different meaning, and that does not negate the nominative if what he mentioned is intended.

Jalal al-Suyuti mentioned that the consensus in the Qur'an is on writing it with an alif and stopping at it, which is proof that it is a noun with tanwin, not a particle ending in nun, especially when it does not occur in the position of putting the imperfect verb in the accusative. So the correct view is to establish this meaning for it, as our Shaykh Al-Kafiji and those before him, whose report was cited, leaned toward. According to this, the most appropriate approach to it in the verse is what he mentioned. We have mentioned some of this talk in the past, so remember.