Tafsir of Al-Isra 17:24

"And lower to them the wing of humility": That is, show them humility and be submissive to them. There are two perspectives regarding this:

First: It is interpreted as the "wing of your own humility." Thus, "the wing of humility" (using the construct state) represents a metaphorical expression for humility. It is permissible to consider "the wing" as a primary metaphor, with "lowering" being a dependent or independent auxiliary; or it may be an extended metaphor.

Second: It falls under the category of the poet Labid’s statement: “On a morning of wind that has revealed, and cold / When the bridle is held in the hand of the North.” In this view, the expression contains an implied and imaginative metaphor, as if "humility" is likened to a bird that descends from a height—a hidden simile—and the "wing" is attributed to it imaginatively, with "lowering" being the completion of the metaphor. For when a bird intends to fly and ascend, it spreads and raises its wings; when it abandons that, it lowers them. Furthermore, when a bird perceives a predator it fears, it clings to the earth and tucks in its wings, which is the ultimate expression of fear and submission. It has also been said that lowering them refers to what a bird does when gathering its chicks for protection, which is more fitting for the context. In Al-Kashf, it is stated that the speech contains a metonymical metaphor arising from attributing a wing to "humility," then treating the combination as a standard expression for extreme humility. Once humility is assigned a wing, the command to lower it is given to complete the image.

Regarding what might cross some minds—that since humility has been assigned a wing, the command to raise it would be more eloquent in strengthening the concept of humility, because a bird’s perfection lies in raising its wings—this is a misconception if the entire phrase is taken as a simile meant to visualize humility as a tangible, perceived object. If treated as an extended metaphor, the claim is flawed, because assigning a lowered wing to humility signifies submissiveness. As for the wing alone, it signifies nothing; hence, it was established as a simile in the preceding discussion.

Sa’id ibn Jubayr read it as al-dhulli (with a kasra on the dhal), meaning obedience/submission, which is rooted in the treatment of beasts; the adjective from it is dhalul (docile). As for al-dhullu (with a damma), it originates in human affairs, representing the opposite of honor (’izz), and the adjective from it is dhalil (lowly).

"Out of mercy": That is, out of the overflow of your mercy toward them. The min (from) is causal, indicating the source. Al-Kashf states: It does not bear the meaning of clarification (explication), such that one would say "if it were so, the metaphor would revert to a simile," because the "wing of humility" is never a product of mercy itself; rather, lowering the wing of humility can be described as an act of mercy, which is clear. The benefit of the hyperbole is derived from making the very essence of mercy the origin of this submissiveness, for it does not arise except from complete mercy. It has also been said that the definite article (in al-rahmah) denotes totality, but that is not as strong. The need for this arises because parents are in dire need of the one who was the poorest of creation toward them, and a person's need for someone who is needy requires the utmost supplication and humility; thus, it demands the most intense mercy. May Allah reward Al-Khafaji, who said: "O you who come to ask about my poverty, what is the state of one who asks from the one who is asking? There is no degradation for a sultan except when he becomes in need of his servant."

"And say: 'My Lord, have mercy upon them'": Call upon Allah the Exalted to have mercy upon them with His lasting mercy, which is the mercy of the Hereafter. Do not settle for your own fleeting mercy, which is what is encompassed by the preceding commands and prohibitions. The mercy of the Hereafter was specifically intended because it is the greatest, and it is the most appropriate to request from the Great One. Furthermore, worldly mercy is obtained generally by everyone. It is also permissible that the intent is to include both types of mercy. Regardless, it is said that this mercy in the supplication is specific to Muslim parents. Others say it is general and was abrogated by the verse prohibiting seeking forgiveness [for polytheists]. Still others argue it is general and not abrogated, because that other verse pertains to [the period] after death, while this one pertains to life. Part of Allah’s mercy toward them is guiding them to faith; thus, supplicating for that mercy necessitates supplicating for faith, which holds no harm. The opinion regarding abrogation was transmitted by Al-Bukhari in Al-Adab al-Mufrad, Abu Dawud, Ibn Jarir, and Ibn al-Mundhir through various chains from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both).

"As they nurtured me": The kaf (as) is for resemblance. The prepositional phrase serves as an attribute for a deleted verbal noun, meaning "mercy like their nurturing of me," or "like their mercy toward me," provided that nurturing is considered a form of mercy. It is also possible that mercy and nurturing are both intended, one mentioned on one side and the other on the other, as alluded to by the exposure of the title of "Lordship" at the beginning of the supplication; as if to say: "My Lord, have mercy on them as they were their Lords and nurtured me."

"When I was small": This is weak. It is permissible that the kaf is for causality, i.e., "because of their nurturing of me." This is countered by the claim that it contradicts the well-known meaning of the kaf, although the resemblance is implied by the causality. Al-Tibi stated that the kaf is for confirming existence, as if to say: "My Lord, have mercy on them with a mercy that is real and evident, with no doubt in it," similar to the verse: "...just as you speak" (51:23). Al-Kashf says this is a fine point. As for the interpretation that ma (in kama) is the infinitive particle, turning it into a temporal marker—i.e., "have mercy on them at the time they are most in need of mercy, just as the time they had mercy on me in my childhood when I was flesh and blood"—and that this only occurs on the Day of Resurrection, and the mercy is Paradise; affirming that this is the verified truth... well, I wonder if this interpretation is sound in Arabic grammar or merely favored for its contextual fit and high-mindedness. As he hinted, it is not something to rely upon.

The outward meaning is that the command implies obligation; thus, it is mandatory for a child to pray for mercy for their parents. The fact that the command does not necessitate repetition implies that once is sufficient for compliance. Sufyan was asked how often a person should pray for their parents per day, month, or year. He replied: "We hope it suffices if he prays for them at the end of the tashahhud, just as Allah the Exalted said: 'O you who have believed, ask [Allah to confer] blessing upon him' (33:56), and they considered the tashahhud sufficient for blessing the Prophet (peace be upon him). And as He said: 'And remember Allah during [specific] numbered days' (2:203), and then they recite the takbir after the prayers."

Furthermore, the Almighty has emphasized the treatment of parents in ways that are not hidden. If there were nothing else, the fact that He paired kindness toward them with His own Oneness, and organized them in the order of His worship, would suffice. Ibn Hibban and Al-Hakim (who said it is authentic on the conditions of Muslim) reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he said: "The pleasure of Allah is in the pleasure of the parents, and the wrath of Allah is in the wrath of the parents." It is authentic that a man came to ask the Prophet (peace be upon him) for permission to participate in jihad with him. He asked, "Are your parents alive?" The man said, "Yes." He said, "Then perform your jihad through them." It also came that he (peace be upon him) said: "If Allah had known of anything lower than 'uff' (an expression of annoyance), He would have forbidden it. Let the disobedient child do what he wants, he will not enter Paradise, and let the obedient child do what he wants, he will not enter the Fire." Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with both) saw a man circumambulating the Ka'bah carrying his mother on his shoulders. He asked, "O Ibn Umar, do you think I have rewarded her?" He said, "No, not for a single labor pain, but you have done good, and Allah will reward you much for the little."

Muslim and others reported: "A child cannot repay his father unless he finds him a slave, buys him, and sets him free." Al-Bayhaqi reported in Al-Dala'il and Al-Tabarani in Al-Awsat and Al-Saghir with a chain containing an unknown narrator from Jabir, who said: A man came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said, "O Messenger of Allah, my father has taken my wealth." The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "Go and bring me your father." Then Jibril (peace be upon him) descended upon the Prophet and said, "Allah sends you greetings and says: 'When the old man comes, ask him about something he said in his heart that his ears did not hear.'" When the old man came, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to him, "Why is your son complaining that you want to take his wealth?" The man said, "Ask him, O Messenger of Allah, did I spend it on anything other than his aunts (paternal and maternal) or on myself?" The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "Enough, leave this aside. Tell me about something you said in your heart that your ears did not hear." The old man said, "By Allah, O Messenger of Allah, Allah continues to increase our certainty in you. I indeed said something in my heart that my ears did not hear." He said, "Speak, and I will listen." The old man said:

"I nurtured you as an infant and supported you as a youth / You thrived on what I earned for you, morning and night. When a night visited you with illness / I did not spend it except watching over you, tossing and turning. As if I were the one stricken with what you were stricken with / My eyes shedding tears for you. My soul fears for you, though it knows / That death is an appointed time. But when you reached the age and the goal I hoped for / You repaid me with harshness and coldness. As if you were the benefactor and the giver of favors / Would that you, if you did not guard the right of my fatherhood, / Had acted as a neighbor acts. You treat me with defiance, as if you were / Entrusted with a grudge against those who are right."

It is said that the Prophet (peace be upon him) then took his son by his collar and said, "You and your wealth belong to your father."

The mother is prioritized in kindness over the father, for the Two Shaykhs reported: "O Messenger of Allah, who among the people is most deserving of my good company?" He said, "Your mother." He said, "Then who?" He said, "Your mother." He said, "Then who?" He said, "Your mother." He said, "Then who?" He said, "Your father."

Kindness is not restricted to life but continues after death. Ibn Majah reported: "O Messenger of Allah, is there anything remaining of kindness toward my parents that I may perform after their death?" He said, "Yes, prayer for them, seeking forgiveness for them, fulfilling their pledges after them, maintaining the ties of kinship that are only maintained through them, and honoring their friends." Ibn Hibban reported it in his Sahih with an addition: The man said, "How much and how good this is, O Messenger of Allah!" He said, "Then practice it."

Al-Bayhaqi reported from Anas that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "A servant may have his parents or one of them die while he was disobedient to them, yet he continues to pray for them and seek forgiveness for them until Allah writes him down as obedient." He also reported from Al-Awza’i who said: "It has reached me that whoever was disobedient to his parents in their life, then paid their debts if they had any, sought forgiveness for them, and did not cause them to be insulted, is written as obedient. And whoever was obedient to them in their life, but did not pay their debts if they had any, did not seek forgiveness for them, and caused them to be insulted, is written as disobedient." He also reported, as did Ibn Abi al-Dunya, from Muhammad ibn al-Nu'man, who attributed it to the Prophet (peace be upon him): "Whoever visits the grave of his parents or one of them every Friday will be forgiven and recorded as obedient."

Muslim reported that Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with both) was met by a man on the road to Mecca. Ibn Umar greeted him, helped him onto a donkey he was riding, and gave him the turban he was wearing on his head. Ibn Dinar said, "I said to him, 'May Allah set you right! They are Bedouins, and they are content with a little.' He replied, 'The father of this one was a friend of Umar ibn al-Khattab, and I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: The best kind of kindness is for a child to maintain relations with the friends of his father.'"

Ibn Hibban reported in his Sahih from Abu Burdah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: "I came to Medina, and Abdullah ibn Umar came to me and said, 'Do you know why I came to you?' I said, 'No.' He said, 'I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: Whoever loves to maintain ties with his father in his grave, let him maintain ties with the brothers of his father after him. There was brotherhood and friendship between my father, Umar, and your father, and I loved to maintain that.'"

Countless hadith have been reported regarding the virtue of kindness, and it is established that disobedience is among the greatest major sins. The agreement on it being a major sin is what they have reached. The appearance of the speech of the majority—indeed, its explicit text—is that there is no difference in this whether the parents are polytheists or Muslims. The qualification of "Muslim parents" in the hasan hadith, where the Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about major sins and said: "Nine: the greatest of them are shirk (polytheism), killing a believing soul without right, fleeing from the battlefield, slandering a chaste woman, sorcery, consuming the orphan’s wealth, consuming usury, and disobedience to Muslim parents," is either because their disobedience is uglier (and the speech there is about listing the "greatest" under one of the interpretations regarding the conjunction of "killing a believer" and what follows), or because they were mentioned as the most common cases, as is the case with other parallels.

Al-Halimi has a detailed view here based on a weak opinion: that disobedience is a major sin; if it is accompanied by insults, it is an abomination. If the disobedience consists of finding their orders and prohibitions burdensome, frowning in their faces, or being weary of them while still offering obedience and maintaining silence, then it is a minor sin. However, if such actions compel them to retract their orders or prohibitions, causing them harm, it becomes a major sin.

There is a difference of opinion among them regarding the definition of disobedience. In the Fatawa of Al-Bulqini, there is an issue that people have been afflicted with, requiring a broad discussion and elaboration to achieve the objective. It is a question regarding the standard by which the disobedience of parents is known, for referring to custom without an example does not yield the intended result, as people are driven by their interests to label what is not custom as custom. An example must be woven on the same loom: if a person had a legal right against his father and chose to take it to the judge to extract his due, even if it led to his imprisonment, would that be disobedience or not? He answered: "This matter is difficult to pin down. Allah the Opener and All-Knowing has granted me a standard that I hope is sound: Disobedience to one of the parents is to harm them in a way that, if done to someone else, would be a forbidden minor sin (which then elevates to a major sin when directed at them); or to violate their order or prohibition in a way that brings fear upon the child regarding the loss of his own life or a limb, provided the parent is not accused of malice in that; or to violate their command in a journey that burdens the parent (provided it is not an obligatory journey for the child); or in a long absence that does not involve beneficial knowledge, earnings, or where there is backbiting."

The clarification of this standard is: our statement "to harm one of the parents in a way that, if done to someone else, would be forbidden"—for example, if he cursed or struck someone other than his parents (in a way that does not reach the level of a major sin), it becomes a major sin when done by the child to one of his parents. This excludes, by our wording "to harm," cases like taking a small amount of money; this is not a major sin, even if taking it from someone else in an unauthorized way would be forbidden, because a parent is not harmed by such a thing due to their inherent compassion. But if he takes a large amount, such that the parent is indeed harmed, this would be a major sin regarding a stranger, and thus it is the same here. The standard remains what is forbidden as a minor sin regarding others. Our wording "if done to someone else would be forbidden" excludes things like demanding a debt, because if he did this to someone else, it would not be forbidden; understand this, for it is a precious insight. As for imprisonment: if we base it on the permissibility of imprisoning a father for the debt of his son, as validated by a group, then he is seeking what is permissible, so there is no disobedience. If we base it on the prohibition, which is the position of others, then if the judge believes in the prohibition, he will not grant it, and the child is not disobedient for requesting it if he believes in the first position. But if he believed it was forbidden and proceeded anyway, it is as if he requested the imprisonment of someone who is not permitted to be imprisoned among strangers. If the child imprisons him while believing it is forbidden, he is disobedient because if he had done this to someone other than his parent where it is not permitted, it would be forbidden. As for mere lawful complaints and lawful requests, they are not part of disobedience. Some children of the Companions complained to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and he did not forbid them, and he is the one who would not approve of falsehood. As for scolding one of the parents: if he did this to someone other than a parent and it was forbidden, it is a major sin toward a parent, even if it were not forbidden otherwise. The same applies to saying "uff"—it is a minor sin toward a parent, though it does not necessarily follow that because they are forbidden, they must be major sins.

Our statement "or to violate their order or prohibition in a way that brings fear..." refers to travel for jihad or similar dangerous journeys, as there is a fear of the loss of the child's life or limb, given the parents' extreme distress. It is established from the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the hadith of Abdullah ibn Amr regarding the man who came to ask permission for jihad, that he (peace be upon him) said: "Are your parents alive?" He said, "Yes." He said, "Then perform your jihad through them." In another version: "Return to them, for in them is the jihad." In another: "I came to swear allegiance to you for migration, and I left my parents weeping." He said, "Return and make them laugh as you made them weep." (Its chain contains Ata ibn al-Sa'ib, but from the narration of Sufyan from him). Abu Sa'id al-Khudri narrated that a man migrated to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and said, "Do you have anyone in Yemen?" He said, "My parents." He said, "Did they give you permission?" He said, "No." He said, "Then return and ask their permission; if they permit you, then perform jihad, otherwise be kind to them." (Reported by Abu Dawud; its chain contains some whose reliability is debated). Our statement "provided the parent is not accused of malice" excludes cases where the parent is a polytheist, as the child does not need his permission for jihad or the like. Where the parent's permission is considered, there is no difference between them being free or enslaved. Our statement "or to violate their order in travel..." refers to travel for voluntary Hajj where it involves hardship, excluding the obligatory Hajj. If it involves sea travel, it is obligatory if safety is predominantly expected; the outward meaning of jurisprudence is that permission is not required. Even if one were to say it is obligatory due to the parent’s fear of sea travel, even if safety is predominant, it would not be far-fetched. As for travel for essential knowledge or communal obligation, there is no prohibition against it, even if he could learn it in his own land, contrary to those who require that, because he might find in travel a vacancy of heart, the guidance of a teacher, and the like. If he expects nothing of that, he needs to seek permission. Where support for the parent is obligatory upon the child, and his travel leads to the loss of this duty, the parent has the right to forbid it. As for if the child's travel leads to damage to his honor, such as being a beardless youth where he is feared to be slandered, he is forbidden from that; this is even more so for a female. As for violating their order and prohibition in matters where no harm at all comes to the child, but is merely guidance for him, it is not disobedience, though not violating them is better. (End of Al-Bulqini’s words).

Some researchers mentioned that disobedience is any action that results in harm to them or one of them that is not considered minor by custom. It is possible that the standard is the one who is harmed, but if the parent, for example, is extremely foolish or simple-minded and orders or prohibits his child in a way that, by custom, is not considered disobedience, his child is not sinful for disobeying him due to the excuse. On this basis, if he were married to a woman he loved and the parent ordered him to divorce her, even if it were due to her lack of chastity, he is not sinful if he does not comply. Yes, it is better to divorce her in compliance with the parent’s command. It is reported by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih that a man came to Abu al-Darda and said, "My father has persisted until he married me to a woman, and now he orders me to separate from her." He said, "I am not one to order you to disobey your parents, nor am I one to order you to divorce your wife. However, if you wish, I will tell you what I heard from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). I heard him say: The parent is the middle door of Paradise, so keep to it if you wish or abandon it." The authors of the four Sunan and Ibn Hibban (who called it a hasan sahih hadith) reported from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with both) that he said: "I had a wife whom I loved, and Umar disliked her, so he said, 'Divorce her,' and I refused. Then Umar came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and mentioned that. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Divorce her." The same applies to his other orders that have no basis other than the weakness of his mind and the simple-mindedness of his opinion. If presented to those of sound mind, they would count them as trivial, and they would see that there is no harm in disobeying them. Then he said: This is what is directed in determining the standard.

The view reported from Al-Bulqini, in that he limits disobedience to the commission of a minor sin (that would be a major sin toward the parent), is subject to review. Rather, the focus should be on what was mentioned: that if one does to them what causes them harm—harm not considered minor by custom—it is a major sin, even if it would not be a forbidden act if done to others; such as if he meets them and scowls, or precedes them in a gathering without rising for them, or disregards them, and similar things which people of intellect and chivalry among the people of custom judge as being great harm. Reflect on this.

The reason for the greatness of the parents' matter is that they are the apparent cause of one's existence and sustenance, and there is almost no blessing of any creature on the child like the blessing of the parents. It should not be said against this: "The parents only sought to obtain pleasure for themselves, and it followed that the child entered existence and entered the world of afflictions and fears, so what blessing is there for him?" It is said that one of those who called himself a philosopher would strike his father and say: "He is the one who brought me into the world of existence and corruption and exposed me to death, poverty, blindness, and disability." It was said to Abu al-Ala al-Ma'arri (who had no children): "What should we write on your grave?" He said: Write: This is what my father committed against me, and I have not committed it against anyone. And he said regarding refraining from marriage and having no children: I left among them the blessing of non-existence that preceded / And deterred from the pleasures of the present / If they had been born, they would have attained a severity / That would cast them into the destructions of the future. Ibn Rashiq said: May Allah curse a pleasure from which our parents / Obtained our misery / If not for existence, we would not have felt poverty / Our existence is a trial for us.

It was said to Alexander: "Is your teacher greater in his right over you, or your father?" He said: "The teacher is greater, because he endured types of hardships and tribulations to teach me until he placed me upon the light of knowledge. As for the father, he sought to obtain the pleasure of intercourse for himself and brought me out to the world of existence and corruption." We say: Granting that in the beginning the desired object was the pleasure of intercourse, the concern for delivering goods and warding off afflictions from the moment the child enters existence until he reaches adulthood is greater than all the facets of goodness and virtue that can be imagined. It may be said: If the bringing into the world of existence and corruption and the exposure to distress and denial were a refutation of the parents' right, it would have to be a refutation of the right of Allah, because He is the True Doer. Furthermore, that exposure is countered by exposure to lasting bliss and great reward, as is not hidden from one of sound mind. By my life, the denial of their right is a denial of the greatest of matters, and he for whom Allah has not made a light, he has no light.