An-Nahl: 76

"And Allah sets forth a parable..."

(Meaning: another parable indicating what the previous parable indicated, but in a more manifest, clearer, and more unambiguous manner. Then He clarified it by His saying:)

"Two men, one of them dumb..."

(Regarding what preceded, and al-bukm is muteness accompanying one’s creation/nature, and it necessitates deafness; thus, its possessor does not understand because of the lack of hearing, nor does he make others understand because of the lack of speech. Gestures are not relied upon, for they do not convey understanding properly to everyone. It is as if it were said: one of them is a mute deaf person who neither understands nor is understood.)

"Unable to do anything..."

(Of the things related to himself or others, through intuition or sagacity, due to the deficiency of his understanding and perception.)

"And he is a burden..."

(A kall is a weight and a dependent 'iyal upon his master, the one who sustains him and manages his affairs. This is an explanation of his inability to fulfill his own interests, after having mentioned his absolute inability.)

"Wherever he directs him, he brings no good..."

(Meaning: wherever his master sends him, he does not return with success or the fulfillment of the task. This is an explanation of his inability to handle the interests of his master. Abdullah [ibn Mas'ud] read, in one narration, "tuwajjih-hu" [directed to the master as an addressee]. Alqama, Ibn Wathab, Mujahid, and Talha—and it is another narration from Abdullah—read "yuwajjih" [active voice, jussive]; this is explained by the agent being the master, and the object is omitted—meaning the mute—i.e., "he directs him." It is also possible that the agent pronoun refers to the mute, with the verb being intransitive, wajjaha meaning tawajjaha [he turned/headed]. Upon this came the saying of Al-Adhbat bin Qurai' as-Sa'di: "Wherever I head, I find Sa'd.")

(From Alqama, Talha, and Ibn Wathab, there is also [the reading] "tuwajjah" [jussive, passive voice]. In another narration from Alqama and Talha, they read "yuwajjih" [with a kasra on the 'jim' and a damma on the 'ha']. The author of al-Lawamih said: "If this is correct, then the 'ha' which is the lam of the verb is omitted to avoid the doubling [tashdid]. Or, aynama is not intended as a conditional particle, and the intent is 'wherever he is, he directs,' and the object pronoun has been omitted from it." Thus, the deletion of the 'ya' from the end of "ya'ti" is for ease of pronunciation. Abu Hayyan critiqued this by stating that ayna does not depart from being conditional or interrogative. He reported from Abu Hatim that this reading is weak because the jussive [mood] is necessary. Then he said: "What justifies this reading is that aynama is conditional, treated like idha due to the commonality they share in conditioning; then the 'ya' of ya'ti was dropped for ease, or it was made jussive based on the assumption that aynama was used as a jussive particle, like the reading of one who read: innahu man yattaqi wa yasbir [dropping the 'ya']. Under one of these two aspects, the meaning is yatawajjah as mentioned previously.)

"Is he equal..."

(Meaning: is that mute person, described with the aforementioned qualities, equal to the one who commands justice? And he is eloquent, possessing opinion and guidance, who suffices people in their important affairs and benefits them by urging them toward justice, which gathers together all the virtues.)

"And he is..."

(In himself, along with the aforementioned private and public benefit, "on a straight path.")

(He does not direct himself toward any objective but that he reaches it with the closest [most efficient] effort. The sentence is in the state of being a hal [circumstantial], clarifying his perfection in himself. Since that is a prerequisite for perfecting others, it was rendered as a nominal sentence, for it implies [both] that and persistence alongside the state of the dhu al-hal [the one in the state]. It is not said that it would be more appropriate for it to be placed earlier in the noble structure, or to contrast those four qualities with these two descriptors, because these two are the perfection and the end point of what contrasts them. Thus, the final qualities of the perfect person were chosen, necessitating what was mentioned and more, for he was made a guide and guided. The style was varied in that it did not say: "And the other commands justice," etc., to observe the congruity between him and what is intended by the clarification of the discrepancy between the two parties.)

(It is said here, as was said in the previous parable: Since the two parties are not equal in virtue and nobility, despite their equality in essence and form, then it is more fitting and worthy to judge that the idol—which does not speak, does not hear, is incapable, cannot do anything, is a burden upon its worshiper, requires him to carry it and place it down, wipe off the filth when it falls upon it, and serve it, and if he directs it toward one of his needs, it does not benefit him and does not bring it to him—is [certainly] not equal to the Lord of the Worlds, in His deserving of worship.)

(It is said: This is a parable for the believer and the disbeliever. The mute is the disbeliever, and the one who commands justice is the believer. This was narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both. Regardless, the intent of "two men" is not two specific individuals, but rather two men described by the aforementioned qualities in an absolute sense. As for what was narrated—that the mute is Abu Jahl and the one who commands justice is Ammar, or the mute is Ubay ibn Khalaf and the one who commands justice is Uthman bin Madh'un—Abu Hayyan said: "Its chain of narration is not authentic." As for what Ibn Jarir and Ibn Asakir and others extracted from Ibn Abbas, that he said: "This verse (And Allah sets forth a parable... two men) was revealed regarding Uthman bin Affan and a slave of his who was a disbeliever, Asid bin Abi al-Ais, who hated Islam; Uthman would spend on him, sustain him, and handle his needs, while the other would forbid him from charity and virtue, so it was revealed regarding them"—after establishing its authenticity, it does not harm us regarding the intent of the described [parties] in an absolute sense, such that it includes those mentioned. For they have clearly stated that the specificity of the cause does not negate the generality of the ruling.)

(Furthermore, the Sheikh al-Islam restricted the purpose of the two parables to the negation of equality between Him, the Majestic, and what they associate [as partners with Him]; this is evidence that it is his preference. Then he said: "Know that for neither of the two verbs [is the meaning] the narration of the act of setting forth, but rather the intent is its initiation through what was mentioned after them." It is not far-fetched to say that Allah Almighty set forth a parable by the creation of the two parties as they are, so their creation as such was for the purpose of deducing—from their lack of equality—the impossibility of equality between Him, Glorified be He, and what they associate. Thus, each of the two verbs is a narration of the past setting forth. But it is not hidden that there is no argument regarding the excellence of his choice, but in the soul there is [a lingering hesitation] regarding his saying: "It is not far-fetched.")