Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:75

"God strikes a parable..."

According to the profound researcher, this comes after He forbade them from striking parables for Him (Exalted is He). He struck a parable to demonstrate that they are not worthy of such a thing, and that if they are at this level of ignorance, imitation, or obstinacy, they have no path to striking accurate parables, which requires intelligence and guidance. Others—perhaps more aptly—said: Since God mentioned that He knows how parables are struck while they do not know, He taught them how parables are struck in this matter. Thus, He said (Exalted is He): "God strikes a parable..."

The connection to the preceding prohibition of idolatry is that when He forbade them from the practical parable of shirk (idolatry), He followed it by uncovering for the insightful the corruption of what they committed, saying (Exalted is He): "God strikes a parable..." They also mentioned what serves as evidence for the stark contrast between His Majesty (Exalted is He) and those whom they associate with Him, calling out clearly to the corruption of their state:

"A slave owned who has no power over anything." This is a substitute for "a parable" and an explanation of it. In reality, the parable is his state of being enslaved and possessing total inability; according to this, He struck Himself as a parable. The slave is described as "owned" to distinguish him from the free person, as both are slaves to God (Exalted is He). It is also implied, as some say, that all are His slaves, and the description of "having no power" is to distinguish him from the mukātab (slave under a contract of manumission) and the ma'dhūn (permitted slave), both of whom have some degree of agency. There is an unmistakable elegance in introducing the parable vaguely and then explaining it with what has been mentioned.

"And he to whom We have provided..." The word man (he who) is an indefinite noun qualified by a relative clause, as Sibawayh will demonstrate, so that it matches "a slave," for that too is an indefinite noun described by an attribute. Abu al-Baqa’ inclined to this, while al-Hawfi said it is a relative noun, which Abu Hayyan supported. Some claimed this is because its usage as a relative noun is more frequent than as a qualified noun, but the first view is the choice of the majority. It means: a free person to whom We provided [wealth] by way of ownership. The shift to the first person ("We have provided") is to signify the difference between the state of the parable and the act of provision, and choosing the pronoun of greatness is to glorify that provision. This glorification is increased by His saying: "from Us," meaning from Our great, transcendent presence, "a good provision," meaning lawful, pure, or deemed good and pleasing by people. It is inferred from this, as is said, that it is abundant, based on the principle that scarcity—being a sibling of non-existence—possesses no inherent goodness.

"And he spends from it..." out of grace and beneficence. The fa (and) is for the consequence of spending following provision, as if it were said: "He to whom We have provided a good provision from Us—and [so] he spends." The preference for the nominal sentence over the verbal sentence here signifies the stability and renewed continuity of the spending.

"Secretly and openly..." meaning in a state of secrecy and a state of publicity, or secret spending and public spending. The intent is to clarify the universality of his spending across times and the inclusivity of his generosity toward those who avoid receiving it openly. It is permitted that its description as "abundant" is derived from this, based on the meaning of "how he wills," which points to the modes of disposition and the vastness of the one who disposes. Prioritizing secrecy over publicity is to signal its merit over the latter, a matter previously discussed.

The move away from applying the two counterparts by saying, "And a free person, an owner of wealth," despite it being more indicative of the contrast between him and his counterpart, is explained in Irshad al-'Aql al-Salim as an attempt to realize the truth: that free people are also under the yoke of God’s servitude, and their ownership of what they possess is only because God provided it to them, without them having any role in it. Furthermore, there is an attempt at hyperbole in showing the contrast between the two represented parties: if a slave who is owned is not like a slave who owns, what then is your estimation of the Lord of the worlds, the Creator of the universes?

"Are they equal?" The plural pronoun is used even though two parties were mentioned. It would be apparent to say yastawiyān (are they two equal?), but the plural is used to indicate that the intent behind what was mentioned is whoever possesses these described attributes from the two categories, not two specific individuals, even if Ibn 'Asakir and a group reported from Ibn Abbas (may God be pleased with them both) that the verse was revealed regarding the sons of Hisham ibn 'Amr—the one who spends his wealth secretly and openly—and his slave Abu al-Jawza', who used to forbid him. God (Exalted is He) knows the authenticity of this. It is also said that it was revealed regarding Uthman ibn Affan (may God be pleased with him) and a slave of his, but the chain of narration is not authentic, as stated in al-Bahr. It is also possible that the plural refers to the meaning, or that the pronoun refers to slaves and free men in general, even if they were not explicitly mentioned, as "a slave owned" and "he to whom We have provided" point to them. The reliable view is the first.

The meaning is: Are slaves and free men—described with the aforementioned attributes—equal, even though both groups are the same in their humanity and their being created by God (Exalted is He), and the wealth spent by the free is not something they had a role in creating or truly owning, but is what God gave them? If the two groups are not equal, then what is your estimation of the Lord of the worlds, when you associate with Him that which is not even as base as a slave—namely, the idols?

It is also said that this is a parable for the abandoned disbeliever and the divinely granted believer. The former is likened to a slave with no agency, because his deeds are nullified, he gives no consideration to his actions, and he follows his desires like a submissive slave akin to beasts, unlike the divinely granted believer. Making this a parable for such is reported from Ibn Abbas and Qatadah. There is no definitive specification, although it is said the verse was revealed regarding Abu Bakr and Abu Jahl (though Abu Hayyan said the chain is not authentic).

Know that they differed regarding whether a slave can own property. Al-Kashshaf says the manifest school is that it is not valid, a view held by al-Shafi'i. Ibn al-Munir, summarizing a long discussion in al-Kashf, said it is valid according to Malik, and the apparent meaning of the verse bears witness to this: God affirmed his inability by saying "owned," then negated the power of agency—granted by the master—by saying "has no power over anything." The meaning is not [absolute] power, but power of agency. Its counterpart is "And he to whom We have provided a good provision from Us... and he spends from it." To interpret this as the exclusion of the mukātab is—besides being anomalous—an abbreviation that causes deficiency, as the Imam of the Two Holy Cities (may God have mercy on him) said regarding "Any woman who marries without the permission of her guardian"—interpreting it as the mukātabah is far-fetched and impermissible. The ma'dhūn (permitted slave) is not excluded, because the intent of "power" is what was mentioned. One cannot argue that it is a necessary, clarifying attribute (and the principle of attributes is restriction), for the profound researcher countered this by saying: The answer is that the meaning is the negation of the power of agency. The verse serves to illustrate the state of the idols compared to God (far is He above that with great transcendence). The more one hyperbolizes the state of inability of the one likened, the more it indicates [the perfection] of the one to whom he is likened. Thus, what matches the context is "power of agency," and its counterpart in the verse is "he spends from it secretly and openly." What he (the other) mentioned has no substance, and there is no deficiency in excluding the mukātab because the wording is inclusive; furthermore, the context is one of hyperbole, so what is imagined to be included in any way should be negated. How far this is from what he quoted from the Imam of the Two Holy Cities!

The verse is also used as evidence that a slave cannot divorce, which is reported from Ibn Abbas. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that he said: "A slave has no [authority to] divorce except by his master's permission," and he recited the verse. The rulings on slaves have been detailed in the science of jurisprudence in the most perfect way.

"Praise be to God." Meaning, all of it belongs to Him (Exalted is He); no one else deserves it, for He is the granter of blessings, even if they appear at the hands of intermediaries, let alone the entitlement to worship. It contains guidance to the truth: that what appears at the hands of the one who spends as mentioned reverts to Him (Exalted is He), as hinted at by "We have provided." Many have said this is praise for the manifestation of the clear proof and the strength of this argument.

"But most of them do not know..." what has been mentioned, so they attribute His blessings to others and worship them for their sake, or they do not know the manifestation of this and the strength of the evidence therein, so they remain in their shirk and misguidance. Negating knowledge from most of them signals that some do know, but do not act according to it out of stubbornness. It is also said that the intent of "most" is "all," as if it were said: "They do not know." It is also said the pronoun "they" refers to creation, while "most" refers to the idolaters. Both statements are contrary to the apparent meaning.