Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:57

"And they assign unto Allah daughters..."

They are the tribes of Khuza’ah and Kinanah, who used to say: "The angels are the daughters of Allah (Exalted is He)." Out of their ignorance, they presumed their femininity and their being His offspring. The Imam said: I think they applied the term 'daughters' to them because of their concealment from the eyes, just like women. For this reason, since the solar disc is in the position of being concealed from the eyes due to its dazzling light and overpowering radiance, they applied the feminine gender to it. It is no refutation to suggest the same for the Jinn, as such linguistic categorization does not require absolute consistency.

It is also said: They applied this term to them due to their concealment, while they are in a place unreachable by others; they are like a man's daughters over whom he is jealous, so he places them in a secure dwelling and a firm location. Although the Jinn are concealed, it is not in this manner, and this interpretation is more plausible than what the Imam mentioned. As for the absence of procreation, it does not suit this context.

"...Glorified is He..."

This is an expression of transcendence and sanctification for Allah (Exalted is His status) from the implication of their statement, or it is an expression of astonishment at their audacity in uttering such an enormity. In the first sense, it is a statement of reality, and in the second, it is metaphorical.

"...and for themselves is what they desire."

Meaning: sons. The word "what" (ma) is in the nominative case as an inchoative (subject), and the preceding prepositional phrase is its predicate. The sentence is in the state of a circumstantial qualifier (hal), and "Glorified is He" is a parenthetical insertion placed exactly where it belongs.

Al-Farra' and Al-Hufi permitted it to be in the accusative case, conjoined to "daughters," as if it were said: "And they assign to themselves what they desire." Az-Zajjaj and others objected to this, arguing that it violates the grammatical rule which states that it is not permissible for a verb to take its own connected pronominal agent—or even an explicit noun—as its object, whether that object is direct or via a preposition, except in the category of zanna (to think/deem) and its relatives. Thus, one may not say Zayd-un darabahu (Zayd hit himself) in the sense of hitting himself, nor Zayd-un marra bihi (Zayd passed by himself). However, it is permissible to say Zayd-un zannahu qa'iman (Zayd thought himself standing) and Zayd-un faqadahu wa 'adimahu (Zayd missed/lacked himself). If the pronoun were replaced by an explicit noun, like the soul—e.g., Zayd-un yadribu nafsahu (Zayd hits himself)—or a separated pronoun—e.g., Zayd-un ma daraba illa iyyahu (Zayd hit none but himself)—it would be permissible.

Therefore, if "what" (ma) is conjoined to "daughters," it leads to the verb of the connected pronominal agent—the waw in yaj'alun (they assign)—taking its own connected pronoun, the hum in lahum (for them), which is governed by the preposition lam in a case other than the exceptions mentioned. This is prohibited among the Basrans and considered weak by others; thus, it would have been more correct to say li-anfusihim (for their own selves).

It was answered that the prohibition only applies when the verb's meaning involves an action actually occurring upon the object, or when it is governed by a preposition, such as Zayd-un marra bihi (Zayd passed by him), where the passing is happening to Zayd. The case we are discussing is not of this type, as the "assigning" (ja'l) is not occurring upon the assigners themselves, but rather upon what they desire. As Al-Khafaji summarized, the prohibition applies strictly to verbs that take direct objects, whereas for verbs involving prepositions, there is a distinction between when the action is intended to be performed upon the object and when it is not; it is prohibited in the first case but not the second, as one cannot perform an action upon oneself.

Abu Hayyan challenged this rule with the verse: "And shake towards you the trunk of the palm tree, and draw to yourself your wing" (Qur'an 19:25; 20:22). Al-Allamah Al-Baydawi answered with another approach: the prohibition only applies if the verb takes the object primarily, not secondarily or dependently, for what is forgiven in a follower is not forgiven in that which is followed. Some scholars restricted this to verbs taking direct objects and permitted it in verbs with prepositions, as is the case here—a view approved by Ash-Shatibi in his commentary on the Alfiyyah. Al-Khafaji remarked: "It is strong in my view, but it does not escape notice that the conjunction here, after all this discussion, leads to the term 'assigning' (ja'l) taking on a meaning that encompasses both 'presuming' and 'choosing'."