Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:72

"And Allah has made for you from among yourselves" (i.e., from your own species and kind; this is a metaphorical expression, for the most well-known meaning of 'self' is the essence, which does not hold true here as it does elsewhere. Therefore, a metaphor was employed, either in reference to the singular or the collective). Some have used this as evidence that it is not permissible for a human to marry from the Jinn.

"Pairs" (so that you may find tranquility in them, and through this, establish your interests, and so that your children may be like you).

Others have narrated from Qatadah that this refers to the creation of Adam and Hawwa (Eve), for Hawwa was created from his own self. This has been countered by the argument that the plural forms "selves" and "pairs" do not suit this interpretation, and to construe it as a form of taghlib (dominance/generalization) is an unnecessary burden on the text, as is the claim that it refers to only some selves and some pairs.

"And has made for you from your pairs" (i.e., from them). The explicit noun was placed in the position of the pronoun to indicate that the intended meaning is that each one of you has been granted [these] from his own spouse, not the spouse of another.

"Sons" (and that is a consequence of the pairs, which is procreation).

"And grandsons" (Hafadah, plural of Hafid, like Katib and Katabah). It comes from the saying: hafada, yahfidu, hafdan, hafudan, and hafdanan, meaning to hasten in service and obedience. In the Hadith, it is said: "To You we run and hasten (nahfidu)." Jamil said: "The handmaids hasten around them, and have surrendered the reins of the camels into their palms." The verb has been used both intransitively and transitively, as in: "They serve (yahfiduna) the guest in their homes out of generosity; that, on their part, is not out of submissiveness." It has also been said in one dialect, as Abu Ubaydah said, ahfada ahfadan. It is also said that hafd means the speed of travel or the shortening of strides. The intended meaning of hafadah, according to what is reported from al-Hasan and al-Azhari—and also coming in a report from Ibn Abbas and chosen by Ibn al-Arabi—is the children of children. Their being from the [spouses] in this case is through an intermediary. It is said they are the daughters, expressed as such to point out the nature of the favor, for they often serve in the homes with the utmost service. It is also said that they are the sons [of sons], and the conjunction is used due to the difference in the two attributes: sonship and service; it is treated as if the essence were different. A similar case has passed before, and this would be an act of grace by granting [a blessing] that combines these two noble attributes, as if it were said: "And He has made for you from them children who are both sons and hafadah (servers/servants)," i.e., combining both these matters. Close to this is what is reported from Ibn Abbas, that the "sons" are the young children and the hafadah are the elder ones. The opposite is reported from Muqatil; it is as if Ibn Abbas looked to the fact that the older ones are stronger in service, while Muqatil looked to the fact that the younger ones are closer to compliance and obedience, considering hafd as the shortening of strides. It is also said they are the woman's children from a previous husband, as reported by Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim from Ibn Abbas.

Al-Tabarani, al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan, al-Bukhari in his Tarikh, and al-Hakim (who authenticated it) narrated from Ibn Mas’ud that they are the akhtan (in-laws). These are intended, as is said, to be the daughters' husbands, who are also called as-har (relatives by marriage). They cited the verse: "If my soul would obey me, it would have hafadah (servants/offspring) that many would count; but it is a soul that refuses, while my eyes persist for the in-laws of the contemptible." The accusative case here is due to a hidden verb; i.e., "And He has made for you hafadah," not by conjunction with "sons," because if a qualification precedes, it attaches to the conjoined parts, and the daughters' husbands are not from the [spouses]. This is weakened by the lack of evidence for assuming something contrary to the apparent meaning, though there is a subtle hesitation there. It is said there is no objection to the conjunction if "in-laws" refers to the woman's relatives, like her father and brother, not the daughters' husbands—for the application of akhtan to them is only common parlance, whereas in the language of the Arabs, it is not so, as mentioned in al-Sihah. One makes "from" (min) causal; there is no doubt that the spouses are the cause for the existence of hafadah in this sense, but it is as you can see. The interpretation of [the term] as "in-laws" and "stepchildren" has been countered by the argument that the context is one of bestowing a favor, and this is not a favor. It was answered that the favor is in consideration of the service, but it is clear that this is corrective, not preferential. It is also said that hafadah means servants and helpers, which is the linguistically well-known meaning. The accusative case is also by a hidden verb: "And He has made for you servants who serve (yahfiduna) your interests and aid you in your affairs."

Ibn Atiyyah said, after citing several opinions on what is intended by this: "These opinions are based on the assumption that everyone is provided with sons and grandsons from his wife; it is clear that this is in view of the prevalent case. It is possible that the saying of the Almighty, 'from your spouses,' is to be taken generally and inclusively; i.e., He made sons and hafadah from the spouses of mankind. In this way, it is correct to apply hafadah according to its linguistic meaning, since not one of mankind is without hafadah." At that point, there is no need for estimation, but it is clear that there is remoteness in it. The postponement of the accusative in both places after the prepositional phrase is, as has passed more than once, for the sake of suspense. The precedence of the prepositional phrase with "lam" over the one with "min" is to indicate from the very beginning that the benefit of the creation returns to them, acting as a reinforcement to the suspense and strengthening it.

"And He provided you with the good things" (i.e., the delights; this is its linguistic meaning). It is permissible that "the good" refers to what is conventional in the language of the Shariah, which is the lawful (halal). Abu Hayyan countered this by saying that the addressees are the disbelievers, and they have no Shariah, so interpreting it as such is not apparent. It was answered that they are held accountable for the branches [of law] as they are for the foundations, so the lawful and the unlawful exist in their regard. Moreover, they are provided with much of the lawful, some of which they ate; it does not necessitate their belief in its lawfulness or the like. The "from" (min) is for tab’id (partitive), because what they are provided with is a portion of all the good things; for all that is in the world of such things is merely a sample of what is in the Hereafter, for there is in it what no eye has seen, no ear has heard, and has not crossed the heart of a man. Much of what is in the world did not reach them. The apparent meaning, according to what we have mentioned, is the generality of the "good things" to include plants, fruits, grains, drinks, and animals. It is also said that what is intended is what came without [the need for] hardship, and it is said it refers to the spoils of war, but that is nothing.

"Is it in falsehood" (which is the benefit of the idols and their blessings; that is nothing but a false delusion to which they did not arrive by any proof or sign). The prepositional phrase is connected to His saying: "do they believe?" It is placed first for restriction, implying they have no belief except in that, as if it were a known and certain fact.

"And in the favor of Allah" (the observed, witnessed [favor] which has no doubt for anyone possessing intellect and discernment, from among what has been mentioned and what is not encompassed by the circle of expression) "do they disbelieve?" (i.e., they persist in disbelieving it and denying it, just as one denies the impossible that the intellects cannot conceive; this is by attributing it to their idols). It is said "falsehood" is what Satan inspires them with regarding the prohibition of the bahirah, sa'ibah, and others, and "Allah’s favor" is what He has made lawful for them. In this case, the verse is clearly connected to His saying: "And He provided you with good things" only, and not to what precedes it as well. The apparent meaning is that it is connected to both. From this, the status of what Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from Ibn Jurayj becomes clear: that the "falsehood" is Satan and "Allah's favor" is Muhammad, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him. We have already clarified most of what we mentioned, and the derivation of the restriction from the [fronting of the object] is apparent. As for "as if it were a known and certain fact," it is derived from their restricting belief to what was mentioned, for that is the state of what one believes in, especially since they have restricted it. Furthermore, the contrast with the witnessed, sensible thing—I have meant the favor of Allah—shows their inversion, indicating that they have made the imaginary equivalent to the certain, and vice-versa. The particle fa used for inversion is intense in indicating this matter. To interpret it as a conjunction for a deleted element is not a sound perspective, as stated in al-Kashf. In that is a rebuttal to what was said, that in both constructions there is emphasis and specification. As for specification in both, it is from the fronting of the object. As for emphasis in the first, it is because the fa necessitates a conjoined element; on that estimation: "Do they disbelieve in the truth and believe in falsehood?" Disbelieving in the truth necessitates believing in falsehood, so belief in falsehood is repeated, and repetition provides emphasis. As for the emphasis in the second, it is from the construction of "they disbelieve" with the pronoun "they" (hum), which serves to strengthen the judgment. The words of al-Zamakhshari are made to point to all of this, so reflect upon it. What was mentioned, that the fronting of the prepositional phrase in both constructions is for specification, is stated by more than one. Al-’Allamah al-Baydawi allowed this, but he inserted the "illusion" here similar to what we did previously.

The reasoning for this is that the context is not a context of actual specification, for there is no exclusivity to their belief in falsehood, nor to their disbelief in the favors of Allah. He did not insert it in the interpretation of the similar passage in [Surah] al-Ankabut, for he justified it by saying that when they believe in falsehood, their belief in anything else is tantamount to nothing, and that all favors are from Allah, either essentially or through an intermediary, so their disbelief is only toward the favors of the Almighty—as it is said, "He who does not thank the people does not thank Allah." The discrepancy remains; it was answered that if one looks to reality, there is no restriction in it, but if what was mentioned is observed, the restriction is "claim-based," which is the meaning of the "illusion" for the sake of hyperbole; thus, there is no contradiction. It is also allowed that the fronting is for concern (ihtimam), because the intended meaning of the denial—which the speech was driven for—is the connection of their disbelief to the favor of Allah and their belief in falsehood, not absolute belief and disbelief. Or it could be for the sake of the rhyming ends; this is less than the two subtle points. The turning to the third person is to indicate that their state warrants turning away from them and diverting the address to others among the listeners, as an expression of astonishment at what they have done. In al-Bahr, it is mentioned that al-Sulami read "do you believe" (tu'minuna) with the ta (second person), and that this was narrated from ’Asim, and the sentence following it is likewise on this reading, as he deemed it most likely in al-Bahr, free from the disbelievers and not included in the rebuke.

There remains the fact that in al-Ankabut it says: "Is it in falsehood they believe, and in the favor of Allah they disbelieve," without the pronoun [the independent pronoun "hum"], while here what you heard occurred with the pronoun. Al-Khafaji clarified the secret of this: since it preceded in this Surah His saying, "Is it the favor of Allah they deny?" (i.e., disbelieve, as passed), if he had mentioned what we are in without the pronoun, the verse would have been a repetition according to the appearance. So he brought the pronoun, which indicates hyperbole and emphasis, so that it might be an escalation in condemnation, far from being redundant. Then he said: "It is said that he proceeded according to the habit of the people: when they tell someone about a wrongdoing they deny, they find it [fitting] to tell about his other state with stronger speech than the first." It is clear that this only helps if one asks: "Why was 'Is it in falsehood they believe' said without a pronoun, while [the other] was 'And in the favor of Allah they disbelieve' with it?" As for the difference between what is here and what is there, no. It is said that the verses of al-Ankabut continued in the third person, so there was no need for an additional third-person pronoun; whereas the verse we are in had many second-person addresses preceding it, so there was no escape from the emphatic third-person pronoun so that it would not be confused with the second-person address. The specification of this one with the addition, and not "Is it in falsehood they believe," despite it being the first [in the sequence] and thus more deserving of it according to the appearance, is [so as not to necessitate] the first rhyming end exceeding the second in length. It was objected to that by saying it is clear there is no requirement for the [necessity of the] third person, and no confusion would arise if the pronoun were omitted. It may be said that the reason the pronoun was not brought in the verse of al-Ankabut, and the verb built upon it, was to provide strength, as the repetition of what signifies the people's disbelief in the favors was sufficient, given its closeness to that verse. Moreover, what the two sentences derive their utmost support from had already preceded there, even if there is a type of distance and difference in it, which is His saying: "And those who believe in falsehood and disbelieve in Allah, those are the losers." Since the verse of al-Nahl in what was mentioned was not of this rank, it was brought with what provides strength. Alternatively, it may be said that since the listing of favors here was in a manner apparent in their arrival to them and the bestowing of them, it was more appropriate that it be brought with what signifies their disbelief in them in a way that implies the improbability of its occurrence from them, so the pronoun was brought in it. And since what is there was not like that, it was not brought with what was mentioned. Perhaps the expression here is "they disbelieve" (yakfuruna) and before it was "they deny" (yajhaduna), because what was before was preceded, as is said, by a parable to complete the ugliness of what they did, and denial is more appropriate for that, as the completion of the hideousness is more perfect in it, which is not the case in what is under discussion. That is what was said, so understand. Allah, the Almighty, knows best the secrets of His Book.