Tafsir of Al-Hijr 15:91

(Those who made the Quran into parts) (91) Meaning: They divided it into truth and falsehood, for they said out of obstinacy and hostility: "Some of it is truth, consistent with the Torah and the Gospel, and some of it is falsehood, inconsistent with them."

The interpretation of the aforementioned "those who divided" (al-muqtasimin) as the People of the Book is reported from al-Hasan and others. In al-Durr al-Manthur, al-Bukhari, Sa‘id ibn Mansur, al-Hakim, and Ibn Marduyah recorded from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he said regarding this verse: "They are the People of the Book; they partitioned it into parts, believing in some of it and disbelieving in some of it."

This has also been narrated as marfu‘ (directly attributed to the Prophet). al-Tabarani recorded in al-Awsat from al-Hibr (Ibn Abbas) that a man asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), saying: "Have you considered the saying of Allah the Exalted: 'Just as We revealed to those who divided'?" The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) replied: "The Jews and the Christians." He asked: "(Those who made the Quran into parts) — what is ‘idin (parts)?" The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) replied: "They believed in some and disbelieved in some," or: "They partitioned it for themselves, mocking it." It is reported from ‘Ikrimah that some of them would say: "Surah al-Baqarah is for me, and some would say Surah Al ‘Imran is for me," and so on.

It is permissible that "those who divided" refers to the People of the Book, and that the "Quran" refers to its linguistic meaning—i.e., that which was read from their scriptures—meaning those who partitioned what they read from their scriptures, altered it, affirmed some, and denied some.

The placement of the verse "(Do not extend your eyes...)" [15:88] between the related [matters] and the object of relation is interpreted as a means of extending the consolation intended by the discourse. The opinion regarding this relationship is countered by the argument that this station is too exalted for such a comparison, for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was given what no one before or after him was given. Furthermore, there is [the difficulty of] interpreting "Quran" by its linguistic meaning.

It is also said: It is related to His saying (the Exalted): "(And say: 'Indeed, I am the clear warner') [15:89]," because it carries the force of a command to warn. It is as if it were said: "Warn the Quraysh just as We sent down the punishment upon the dividers," meaning the Jews—that which befell [the tribes of] Qurayzah and al-Nadir—by treating the expected as if it were the actual, and it indeed occurred as such. This is countered by the fact that the object of comparison—the threatened punishment—should be known at the time of the revelation, and this is not the case here, thus rendering the comparison void. Treating the expected as if it were the actual has a majestic place in the miracle [of the Quran], but only when it meets a context that demands it, as in His saying (the Exalted): "(Indeed, We have given you a clear victory)" [48:1], and its likes. Moreover, restricting the "division" to the Jews merely because the aforementioned punishment was specific to them, while the Christians shared with them the division stemming from [the act of] agreement and disagreement, and the division in the sense of distortion that encompasses both scriptures—nay, restricting the aforementioned punishment to them while it is a result of that division—is a specification without a specifier.

It is permitted that "the dividers" refers to a group of the Quraysh, numbering twelve. Ibn al-Sa’ib said: sixteen men—Hanzalah ibn Abi Sufyan, ‘Utbah and Shaybah sons of Rabi‘ah, al-Walid ibn al-Mughirah, Abu Jahl, al-‘As ibn Hisham, Abu Qays ibn al-Walid, Qays ibn al-Fakih, Zuhayr ibn Umayyah, Hilal ibn al-Aswad, al-Sa’ib ibn Sayfi, al-Nadr ibn al-Harith, Abu al-Bakhtari ibn Hisham, Zam‘ah ibn al-Hajjaj, Umayyah ibn Khalaf, and Aws ibn al-Mughirah. Al-Walid ibn al-Mughirah sent them during the days of the pilgrimage to stand at the entrances of the roads of Mecca to turn people away from faith in the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). They divided themselves among those entrances, some saying: "Do not be deceived by the one who has appeared, for he is a sorcerer," another saying: "He is a liar," another: "He is a poet," and other such ravings of theirs. Allah the Exalted destroyed them on the day of Badr and before it with various afflictions.

In this reading, "those" (al-ladhina) is the object of the verb "warn," as its first object, and "just as" (ka-ma) is the second object. That is: "Warn the partitioners—those who split the Quran into sorcery, poetry, and myths—just as We revealed [punishment] upon the dividers—those who partitioned the entrances of Mecca and raved like their raving."

This is countered by the argument that, along with the previous objection regarding the punishment—which is the object of comparison—not being an actual and known punishment to those being warned, there is no justification for restricting the description of "partitioning" to them and excluding the [original] "dividers" from among them, when they are their peers in that act. For their description of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) as a sorcerer, poet, and liar stems from their description of the Quran as such, and is that not the very essence of "partitioning"? There is no reason to exclude them from the command of warning. Furthermore, the punishment that befell them was not of such intensity that it could be used to compare to the punishment of others, nor was it exclusive to them; rather, it is general for both parties and others. Moreover, some of those who are counted among the warned—according to one opinion, such as al-Walid ibn al-Mughirah and al-Aswad and others—had perished before the destruction of most of the "dividers" on the day of Badr. Nor is there [any justification] for placing the second object before the first, as you see.

It is said: It is an attribute for the object of "the warner," placed in its stead after the [actual] object was omitted, and "the dividers" are those who sat at the entrances of the roads, as refined. That is: "Warn [them of] a punishment from the punishment which We revealed upon the dividers."

This is also countered by the argument that, along with what has passed, it requires that "Just as We revealed" be a quote from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), which is not correct. It is excused by saying that it is like a king’s intimate saying: "We have commanded such and such," while the commander is the King, as previously stated, or [it is] a recitation of the saying of Allah the Exalted—in which there is a known degree of forced interpretation (ta‘assuf). Furthermore, it involves the acting of the attribute upon the described in the object, which is not permitted.

It was answered that the Kufans permit it, and the speaker based the discourse upon that, or that the intended object is the implicit object, and its estimation is "with a punishment," in which case it is not forbidden for the attribute to act upon it.

It is said: The "dividers," upon the estimation of [it being] an attribute, are the group who conspired to spend the night [planning to assassinate] Salih (peace be upon him), and Allah the Exalted destroyed them. "Partitioning" here means "conspiring." There is no issue with the comparison, because their punishment is a verified matter which the Great Quran spoke of, so it is correct for it to be the object of comparison for the punishment [of those being] warned. The relative pronoun is either the first object of "warner," or [the object] of what it points to, which is "warn."

This is also countered by the argument that, after turning a blind eye to the disagreement or obscurity regarding the objectivity, there is no benefit in the reference to the title of "partitioning" within the clause, nor to the title of "dividing" in the sense mentioned within the second object, because that [mention] only serves to indicate that the clause and attribute are the cause for the ruling established for the relative pronoun and the described. Thus, there is no point of similarity upon which the comparison of their punishment hinges, for they do not share the cause. The "partitioners" are far removed from the conspiracy to assassinate [Salih], which is the cause for the destruction of those, while those [conspirators] are far removed from the "partitioning" which is the cause for the destruction of these. There is no relationship between the two causes, either in concept or in existence, that would validate the occurrence of one on one side and the other on the other. The agreement of both groups on the absolute concept of agreement on evil, understood from the agreement on the specific evil which is the conspiracy indicated by "partitioning," is of no use, for the title of "partitioning" has no indication of that; it only indicates the division of the road entrances.

To make the relative pronoun the subject, with its predicate being the partition-clause, does not befit the elegance of the Revelation and the majesty of its sublime status. This attribution is reported from Ibn Zayd, and in a narration of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), which al-Bayhaqi and Abu Nu‘aym recorded in al-Dala'il, is what requires it. Hence, it is said that the lack of propriety is refuted. Some who accept it say: It is permissible for the described to be an attribute of "the dividers," intending by them those people [the conspirators]. The meaning of their "making the Quran into parts" is their ruling that it is a fabrication and their denial of it. The intended meaning is its linguistic meaning, so it reverts to describing them by their denial of their book and their turning away from faith and acting upon what is in it. This conforms to what is in His saying (the Exalted) regarding them and their people: "(And We gave them Our signs, but they turned away from them)" [15:81], based on the idea that the "signs" refers to the verses of the Book revealed to their prophet (peace be upon him), as was said previously.

If you reject that based on what you heard there, we adhere to the relative pronoun being an object, and we say: The benefit of addressing the two aforementioned titles in the mentioned manner is to indicate the heinousness of the act of denial and that its status in being the cause of punishment is like the "partitioning" [conspiracy] to kill the Prophet. This requires that what this implies of the heinousness of the aforementioned partitioning be accepted, because it only stems from denial and increased hostility toward the Prophet. In this, there is a discussion.

It is said: What validates the occurrence of one of the two titles on one side and the other on the other is that denial, in the estimation of the deniers, leads to the nullification of the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) mission and the extinguishing of his light, which is the final cause for that aforementioned partitioning as well. This is as you see.

Abu al-Baqa’ said—and would that he had not said it: That "(Just as We revealed)" relates to His saying (the Exalted): "(We have enjoyed [them] with pairs of them)" [15:88], and it is in a position of accusative as an adjective for an omitted verbal noun, meaning: "We have let them enjoy with enjoyment, just as We revealed upon the dividers." The meaning is: "We have blessed some, just as We punished some."

Ibn ‘Atiyyah and others mentioned that it is possible that the meaning is: "Say: 'Indeed, I am the clear warner,' just as We revealed in the Books that you will come as a warner to the dividers," meaning the People of the Book. Their intent, as it is said, is that "what" (ma) in "just as" (ka-ma) is relative, and the similarity derived from the particle ka (as) is agreement. It, along with what is in its clause, is in the position of accusative as a state of the object of "say." Meaning: "Say this statement while it is 'as We revealed upon the People of the Two Books'," meaning consistent with that. The most appropriate in this case is to interpret "dividing" as distortion, so that describing them with that acts as an allusion to what they did of distorting and concealing the description of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). You know that there is remoteness in this, but it is preferable compared to some of what preceded.

Close to this is what was said: The meaning is "And We have given you seven of the oft-repeated [verses] and the Great Quran," a giving consistent with the giving We revealed to the People of the Two Books and informed them of in their books. In this, there is what is in it.

As for making it superfluous (za'idah) and the meaning being "I am the clear warner [of] what We have revealed," its state is in no need of alerting.

The learned scholar Abu al-Su‘ud said, after quoting the sayings and following them with what he followed: The closest of the mentioned sayings is that "(Just as We revealed)" relates to His saying (the Exalted): "(And We have given you...)" etc., and that "the dividers" refers to the People of the Two Books, and that the relative pronoun with its clause is an attribute clarifying the manner of their dividing. The position of the particle ka is accusative as a verbal noun. The [problem of the] majesty of the station being above comparison is [addressed by] the indications of profound reflection. The meaning is: "We have given you seven of the oft-repeated and the Great Quran, a giving analogous to the revelation of the two Books to their people." The lack of exposing the mention of what was revealed to them of the two Books is because the purpose is to state the analogy between the two givings, not between their objects. The departure from applying what is on the side of the object of comparison to what is on the side of the comparison by saying: "Just as We gave the dividers," as occurs in His saying (the Exalted): "(Those to whom We have given the Book...)" [2:146] etc., is to alert to the distance between the two givings, for the first is in the manner of honor and favor, so there is a vast difference between it and the second. This does not invalidate its occurrence as an object of comparison, for that is only because it is conceded by them and its existence preceded the object of comparison in time, not because of a merit that returns to its essence. Similar to this is what was said regarding the Ibrahimic prayers; thus, there is no indication in the comparison of the superiority of the object of comparison over the comparison, let alone implying that what the first is related to is the same as what the second is related to. They only mentioned them with the title of "partitioning" to deny their [claim of] being characterized by it, while the revelation mentioned [by the Quran] which refutes it is realized, and to indicate that it was their right to believe in all of it, just as they believed in what was revealed to them, by virtue of the sharing in the cause and the unity in the reality which is absolute revelation.

The placement of His saying (the Exalted): "(Do not extend your eyes...)" [15:88] in the middle is for the sake of its perfect connection to what is the intended meaning of clarifying the state of what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was given. First, He clarified his elevated status and high rank (peace and blessings be upon him) such that he deserves to be envied for his position, and is sufficient with it from all else. Then He forbade turning to the splendor of the world, and He (the Exalted) expressed the giving of it to its people as "enjoyment," which signals the imminence of its disappearance from them. Then [He spoke] of the sadness for the lack of belief of those immersed in it, and commanded the consideration of the believers and to be sufficient with them instead of others, and to show his firmness in the requirements of the mission and the rituals of warning, as detailed in the folds of what he was given of the Great Quran. Then He returned to the manner of his being given [the Quran], in a way that incorporates what removes the suspicions of the deniers and brings them down from their obstinacy, by clarifying his participation in what they have no doubt is true revelation. So reflect, and Allah the Exalted has the knowledge of the Book. This is a discourse upon which are the signs of investigation.

In al-Bahr, after quoting most of these sayings, he says: "These are burdensome sayings and interpretations. What appears to me is that when He (the Exalted) commanded him (peace and blessings be upon him) not to be sad over those who did not believe, and commanded him to lower his wing to the believers, He commanded him (peace and blessings be upon him) to inform the believers and others that he is the clear warner, so that the believers would not think that since he was commanded to lower his wing to them, they had exited the scope of the warning. So he (peace and blessings be upon him) was commanded to say to them: '(Indeed, I am the clear warner)' to you and to others, just as He (the Exalted) said: '(You are only a warner for whoever fears it)' [79:45]. The particle ka is an adjective for an omitted verbal noun, and the estimation is: 'And say a statement like what We revealed upon the dividers: that you are a warner to them.' So the address to the believers in the warning is like the address to the infidel dividers, so that it is not thought that your warning to the infidels is contrary to your warning to the believers; rather, you are in the status of warning for them in one position—you warn the believer as you warn the disbeliever, as He (the Exalted) said: '(I am not but a warner and a bringer of good tidings to a people who believe)' [7:188]."

This, in its literal wording, is—as you see—feeble in word and meaning. And Allah the Exalted knows best His intent, and with Him is the knowledge of the Book.

‘Idin (parts) is the plural of ‘idah, and its root is ‘idwah, with a kasra under the ‘ayn and a fatha on the dad, meaning "part." It is weak in its final letter from ‘ada-ha (doubled), meaning he made it members and parts. So the meaning is "they made the Quran into parts."

It is said: ‘Idah in the dialect of the Quraysh is sorcery. They say of a sorcerer: ‘aidah, and a sorceress: ‘aidah. In a hadith narrated by Ibn ‘Adi in al-Kamil and Abu Ya‘la in his Musnad: "May Allah the Exalted curse the ‘aidah and the musta‘didah." He (peace and blessings be upon him) intended the sorceress and the one who seeks sorcery, i.e., the one who utilizes the sorcery of others for her own benefit. In this case, it is taken from ‘adadtuhu; the omitted letter is ha', as in shafah (lip) and shah (sheep), according to the saying that their root is shafahah and shahah, evidenced by their plural being shifah and shiyah, and their diminutive being shufayhah and shuyayhah.

From al-Kisa’i, it is from ‘ad‘aha, ‘adahan, wa ‘adiyah (to accuse with slander). It is said: ‘Idah is taken in the sense of sorcery from this because slander has no root, and sorcery is the imagining of a thing that has no reality. al-Farra’ went to the opinion that it is from ‘idah (thorny trees), which is a tree that causes harm like thorns. Some preferred the first. The sound plural [for ‘idin] is to compensate for what was omitted, like ‘izin and sinin; otherwise, it should not be pluralized with the sound masculine plural because it is non-rational and its singular has changed, and the likes of this is frequent and common. Among the Arabs are those who keep the ya' fixed and place the inflection on the nun, saying: ‘idinuka like sininuka. This dialect is frequent among Tamim and Asad.

The expression of the partitioning of the Quran as ta‘diyah (dismemberment), which is the separation of members from a living being—which necessitates the removal of its life and the invalidation of its name—rather than absolute partitioning or separation, which might be found in that which is not harmed by division, is [to act as a] provision to declare the ugliness of what they did to the Great Quran.