Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:102

"Do those who disbelieve think" (meaning: disbelieve in Me, as is evidenced by His saying: "My servants"). Al-husban here carries the meaning of al-zann (supposition). Abdullah [Ibn Mas'ud] read it as afazanna (do they assume). The interrogative particle (al-hamza) is for denunciation and reproach, in the sense of denying the reality of the matter and deeming it abominable. The fa is for conjunction with an implied [antecedent] which is clarified by the connective clause [of the preceding verses], based on the interpretation of denunciation and reproach; this, along with both conjoined elements, is what the Sheikh al-Islam [al-Baydawi] chose.

The meaning is: Do they disbelieve in Me despite the majesty of My status, and then suppose "that they may take My servants"—from among the angels, Isa [Jesus], and their like, peace be upon them—"as protectors instead of Me"? [They are identified as "My servants"] from among the close ones, as is suggested by the annexation (idafa), for the most part of such phrasing is to honor the annexed [term]. Qatada restricted the intended meaning to the angels, but the apparent meaning is that which encompasses them and others among those we mentioned; this was the choice of Abu Hayyan and others. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that the intended meaning is the devils, but there is weakness in this, and perhaps the narration is not authentic. It is narrated from Muqatil that the intended meaning is idols, and you see how that is. Some investigators allowed that it may encompass those mentioned, the idols, and all other false deities—whether celestial bodies or others—by way of dominance (taghlib). Perhaps the context dictates that the annexation here is not for honor; i.e., do they suppose that they may take My servants—those who are under My dominion and authority—"instead of Me," meaning, bypassing Me, "as protectors," i.e., as deities worshipped or as supporters against My might.

Regarding the clause in the position of the object of hasiba, it is said that it occupies the place of the two objects of hasiba; i.e., "Do they suppose that they take them as protectors?" The focus of the denunciation is that they take them as such, except that al-husban was inserted for emphasis. Others said the meaning is as mentioned, implying that such [acts] do not constitute "taking" at all, because taking is something that occurs between two parties, and those [servants] are far removed from their guardianship, for they say: "Exalted are You, You are our Protector, not them." Others said that "that" (an) and what follows it is, in the interpretation of a verbal noun, the first object of hasiba, and the second object is omitted; i.e., "Do they suppose their taking [of them] is beneficial to them, or a cause for lifting the torment from them, or similar?" This is based on allowing the omission of one of the two objects in the category of 'alima, which is the position of some grammarians. This was critiqued on the grounds that it concedes the validity of the "taking" itself and treats it as having some status, whereas the first view is free of that.

Furthermore, in al-Kashshaf it is stated that the investigation holds that the Almighty's saying "think" (fa-hasiba) is conjoined to "were" (kanat) and "they were" (kanu), indicating that the supposition originates from their blindness and deafness. The interrogative hamza was introduced upon it as a reproach upon a reproach, disconnecting it from what was conjoined to them [the previous verbs] in wording, though not in meaning, to signal an independence that confirms the reproach. It is as if it were said: They do not remove from themselves the sickness of blindness and deafness, but rather add to them the supposition that results from them. The Almighty's saying "those who disbelieve" uses the explicit noun in place of the pronoun to add to the reproach. This is the end [of the quote]. In Irshad al-'Aql al-Salim, after citing the aforementioned up to his saying "as if it were said, etc.," it is stated that this is resisted by the abandonment of the pronoun and the addressing of a description other than blindness and deafness. Furthermore, these were presented as their innate states and were not mentioned as being among their voluntary, emergent acts—unlike their supposition—in order to make the derivation from them sound. Moreover, it [disbelief/shirk] is an ancient religion of theirs that cannot be considered as originating from their deafness to the words of the Almighty; thus, restricting the denunciation to their supposition that follows that is an affectation that is not hidden. This is the end [of the quote], and it is not free of contention, so contemplate it.

'Ali—may the Almighty ennoble his countenance—Zayd ibn 'Ali ibn al-Husayn, al-Shafi'i—may mercy be upon him—Yahya ibn Ya'mar, Mujahid, 'Ikrimah, Qatada, Nu'aym ibn Maysarah, al-Dahhak, Ibn Abi Layla, Ibn Muhaysin, Abu Haywah, Mas'ud ibn Salih, Ibn Kathir, and Ya'qub (with a difference of opinion from the latter two) read "afahasbu" with the sin vowelled with sukun and the ba vowelled with damma, annexed to "those who disbelieve." This is explained by hasbun being a nominal predicate, meaning muhasib (sufficient/enough). "That they take..." is its predicate; i.e., "Is their taking of My servants instead of Me as protectors sufficient for them?" Therein lies a proof of the utmost reproach, for it makes that their only provision on the Day of Reckoning and what they suffice themselves with, instead of all the beliefs and virtues that are necessary for the successful ones on that day. Al-Zamakhshari made the verbal noun derived from an and the verb the subject of hasbu because it relied upon the hamza, and a ism fa'il (active participle), when it relies [on an interrogative], equals the verb in governance. Abu Hayyan objected to him that hasbu is interpreted as an active participle, and what was mentioned is restricted to the explicit descriptor. He then pointed to his answer: that Sibawayh allowed in [phrases like] marartu bi-rajulin khayrun minhu abuhu (I passed by a man whose father is better than him)... and mentioned that they allowed... [complex grammatical examples follow]. In that case, there is no issue with what al-Zamakhshari mentioned.

"We have prepared Hell"—meaning, We have readied it, which is apparent in that it is created today—"for the disbelievers"—the known ones. The shift from the pronoun [to the explicit noun] is a reproach to them and an indication that this preparation is because of their disbelief, which includes their false supposition—"as a hospitality" (nuzulan), meaning something they enjoy upon their arrival; it is what is prepared for the nazil (guest) from food that is present. A group of exegetes chose this. In this, as it is said, is a refutation of their supposition and a mockery of them, for their taking [of idols] as protectors was of the nature of preparing equipment and readiness for the Day of Resurrection. It is as if it were said: We have prepared for them—in place of what they prepared for themselves in terms of equipment and store—Hell as their equipment. In the mention of "hospitality" (nuzul) is an indication that they have, beyond Hell, a torment of which it is but a model. This is not contradicted by the Almighty's saying "their recompense is Hell," because the intended meaning there is that it is their recompense, with all that it contains. So understand. Al-Zajjaj said: Nuzul is the place of arrival, and this is narrated from Ibn Abbas. It is also said: It is the plural of nazil, and its accusative case is as a state (hal).

Abu Haywah and Abu 'Amr (with a difference of opinion) read nuzlan with the zay vowelled with sukun.