Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:43

(And We did not send before you except men to whom We revealed): This is a refutation of the Quraish, as they denied the messengership of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), saying: "Allah is too exalted for His messenger to be a human being; why did He not send an angel to us?" That is to say: The divine practice—as dictated by wisdom—has proceeded such that We do not send for general invitation [to the faith] anyone except men to whom We reveal, by way of an angel, the commands and prohibitions in most cases, so that they may convey them. The condition of "general invitation" excludes the sending of angels to the prophets (peace be upon them) for conveyance [of divine knowledge] or to others, such as sending the angel to Maryam for the glad tidings. The phrase "in most cases" excludes certain types of revelation that did not occur via an angel, as indicated by the words of the Almighty: (And it is not for a human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil or that He should send a messenger to reveal by His permission what He wills). The majority recited "yūḥī" (reveals) with a yā’ and a fatḥah on the ḥā’; a group read it with a yā’ and a kasrah; and Abdullah [ibn Mas‘ūd], as-Sulamī, Ṭalḥah, and Ḥafṣ read it with a nūn and a kasrah. In that is a glorification of the matter of revelation which is not hidden.

Since the intent of the address to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was to alert the disbelievers to its content, the address was shifted to them, and it was said: (So ask the People of the Reminder): That is, the People of the Book, from among the Jews and Christians. This was stated by Ibn Abbas, al-Ḥasan, as-Suddī, and others. The designation of the Book [as "the Reminder"] will be known from what follows, if Allah the Almighty wills. Mujāhid specified it to be the Torah, because of the Almighty's saying: (And We have already written in the Psalms after the Reminder), and its people are the Jews.

Al-Baḥr [al-Muḥīṭ] states that the intent is those who did not convert among the People of the Book, because they are those who would not be accused by the people of Makkah of bias regarding the news that the messengers (peace be upon them) were men; thus, their report of that is an argument against them. The goal is to shatter their argument and compel them; otherwise, the truth is clear in itself and does not require the reporting of these [people]. Indeed, after the revelation of this verse, the polytheists sent to the people of Yathrib to ask them about that. Al-A‘mash, Ibn ‘Uyaynah, and Ibn Jubayr said: The intent is those who converted among them, such as Abdullah ibn Salām and Salmān al-Fārisī (may Allah be pleased with them) and others. This is weakened by the fact that the statement of those who converted holds no argument against the disbelievers. From this, the weakness of the claim by Abū Ja‘far and Ibn Zayd—that the intent of "the Reminder" is the Qur’an, because Allah the Almighty named it "a reminder" in several places, among them what will come shortly—is evident. Based on this, the "People of the Reminder" are the Muslims generally. Some of the Imāmīyah restricted them to the Imāms of the Household (Ahl al-Bayt), citing as evidence what Jābir and Muḥammad ibn Muslim narrated from Abū Ja‘far (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "We are the People of the Reminder." Some interpreted "the Reminder" as the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) based on the Almighty’s saying: (...a Reminder, a Messenger), according to one reading. It is said, according to the implication in al-Baḥr: How would the disbelievers of Makkah be convinced by the report of the Household regarding this, when they are not, in their view, more truthful than the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who is well-known among them as al-Amīn (the Trustworthy)? Perhaps what Ibn Mardawayh narrated from us—conforming in its appearance to what some of the Imāmīyah claimed—from Anas, who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) say: "A man prays, fasts, performs Hajj and ‘Umrah, yet he is a hypocrite." It was said: "O Messenger of Allah, by what did hypocrisy enter him?" He said: "He defames his Imām." And the Imām is the one whom Allah the Almighty mentioned in His Book: (So ask the People of the Reminder)—to the end of the narration—is not authentic. I say: It is permissible that "People of the Reminder" refers to the People of the Qur’an, even if Abū Ḥayyān said what he said, and you shall know its aspect shortly, if Allah the All-Bestowing wills.

Ar-Rummānī, az-Zajjāj, and al-Azharī said: The intent of "People of the Reminder" is the scholars of the history of past nations, whoever they may be. So "Reminder" is in the sense of preservation (ḥifẓ); it is as if it were said: Ask those who are informed about the histories of the nations, and they will inform you of that.

(If you do not know): The response to in (if) is either omitted because of what precedes it, i.e., "So ask," or it is what precedes it, based on the permissibility of the response preceding the condition.

The verse is used as evidence that the Almighty did not send a woman, nor a boy. The prophethood of ‘Īsā (peace be upon him) in the cradle does not contradict this, for prophethood is more general than messengership. It does not necessitate the validity of the claim regarding the prophethood of Maryam either, because the ultimate limit of [the verse] is the negation of the messengership of a woman, and the proof of her prophethood does not follow from that. A group held the view that the prophethood of women is valid, and Ibn as-Sayyid declared this sound. The verse does not contradict what is indicated by the Almighty’s saying: (...making the angels messengers), for the intent is making them messengers to the angels or to the prophets (peace be upon them), not for general invitation, which is the claim—as you have known. Thus, the "messenger" is either in the technical sense or the linguistic sense.

Al-Jubbā’ī said: The angels (peace be upon them) were not sent to the prophets (peace be upon them) except while appearing in the form of men. This is refuted by the narration that our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) saw Jibrīl (peace be upon him) in his original form twice. This is an objection to the exclusivity which implies generality; thus, it is not an objection that there is no evidence in the report regarding the seeing of Jibrīl (peace be upon him) by those before our Prophet (peace be upon him) in his form, especially since if this is established for the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and it is not established that it was among his personal specialties, there is no barrier to its being established for others. This was stated by ash-Shihāb. He mentioned that the Imām quoted from al-Qāḍī that al-Jubbā’ī’s intent was that they were not sent to the prophets (peace be upon them) in the presence of their nations except while in the form of men, as it was narrated that Jibrīl (peace be upon him) appeared to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) in the presence of his companions in the form of Diḥyah al-Kalbī, and in the form of Surāqah, and in the form of a Bedouin whom they did not recognize.

The verse is also used as evidence for the obligation to refer to scholars regarding that which one does not know. In al-Iklīl, Jalāl as-Suyūṭī states that it is used as evidence for the permissibility of the layman practicing taqlīd (imitation/following) in matters of furū‘ (subsidiary/jurisprudential issues). Consider the restriction to furū‘, for the apparent meaning is generality, especially if we say that the issues about which the people are commanded to refer and ask are among the uṣūl (fundamental tenets). This is supported by what is conveyed from al-Jalāl al-Maḥallī, that the non-mujtahid—whether he is a layman or otherwise—is obliged to follow the mujtahid, due to the Almighty’s saying: (So ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know). The correct view is that there is no difference between doctrinal issues and others, nor between the mujtahid being alive or dead.

He and others declared the impermissibility of taqlīd for the mujtahid as absolute, regardless of whether he possesses a decisive proof or not, and whether he is a mujtahid in actuality or possesses the capacity for ijtihād. The implication of their speech is that there is no difference between following one of the four schools of thought and following another mujtahid. Yes, the All-Eminent Ibn Ḥajar and others mentioned that it is a condition for following others that their school of thought must be documented, preserving the conditions and recognized principles. Thus, the statement of as-Subkī—that one who opposes the four [schools] is like one who opposes the consensus—is understood as applying to that which was not preserved and whose conditions and all other recognized principles are unknown, such as the schools of ath-Thawrī, al-Awzā‘ī, Ibn Abī Laylā, and others. Furthermore, following others according to its condition is only permissible in practice (action). As for issuing fatwā or judging, one of the four schools of thought is mandatory. The All-Eminent Ibn Qāsim al-‘Abbādī found the distinction problematic. It was answered that it is possible that the distinction is that precautions are taken in those two [issuing fatwa and judging] because of their impact, which is not the case for individual practice; therefore, they are abandoned for the slightest drawback, even if it is merely possible. Similar to this is what some of the Shāfi‘īs mentioned regarding two equivalent opinions: that one does not issue a fatwā or judge by either of them, due to the possibility that it is the weaker one, though it is permissible to practice by it.

The Imām mentioned that some people permitted taqlīd for the mujtahid based on this verse, saying: Since one of the mujtahids is not a scholar [in a specific area], he is obliged to return to the learned mujtahid, due to the Almighty’s saying: (So ask...). If it is not obligatory, then it is at least permissible. This was supported by the fact that some mujtahids transmitted the schools of some Companions and approved the rulings based upon them. The correct view is what you heard first, and what was mentioned is not taqlīd; rather, it is in the category of one ijtihād agreeing with another. The deniers of qiyās (analogy) also argued with this verse, saying: If a matter descends upon a legally responsible person (mukallaf), and he is a scholar of its ruling, then qiyās is not permissible for him. Otherwise, he is obliged to ask one who is a scholar of it, based on the apparent meaning of the verse. If qiyās were an argument, he would not be obliged to ask, because he could derive that ruling by qiyās. Thus, it is proven that permitting action based on qiyās necessitates abandoning action based on the apparent meaning of the verse; therefore, it must be impermissible. It was answered that the permissibility of action based on qiyās is established by the consensus of the Companions, and consensus is stronger than this evidence. Some said: If the mukallaf is one capable of qiyās, he is among those who "know," so he is not obliged to ask. Reflect on this.