Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:18

Read with a fatha on the sīn. Nāfiʿ, Ibn Kathīr, Abū ʿAmr, and al-Kisāʾī read it with a kasra, meaning: "you would reckon them." The address here is like that in the previous verse. The apparent meaning is that this is an inaugural statement, not based on an implied condition. It is said that there is an ellipsis in the speech, the implication being: "If you were to see them, you would think them..."

Ayqāẓan (awake): The plural of yaqaẓ with a kasra on the qāf, like inkād and nakad—as stated in al-Kashf—and with a damma, like aʿḍād and ʿaḍud, as stated in al-Durr al-Maṣūn. In al-Qāmūs, it is stated: "a man is yaqaẓ, like nudus and katif," thus recording both dialects: the damma and the kasra of the ʿayn. It means "the wakeful."

The focus of the "reckoning" (the impression of wakefulness) is their eyes being open in the manner of one looking, as more than one has stated. Ibn ʿAṭiyyah said: "It is possible the viewer would think so due to the intensity of the preservation that was upon them and the lack of [physical] change; for the prevailing state of sleepers is relaxation and postures required by sleep. If these are absent in a sleeper, the viewer deems him awake, even if his eyes are closed." If the opening of their eyes is confirmed by a chain of narration that precludes excuse, this "reckoning" is clearer.

Al-Zajjāj said: Its focus is their frequent turning, and he provided evidence for this by the mention of it afterward. The objection to this is that "and they were ruqūd" (asleep) does not harmonize with it—ruqūd being the plural of rāqid, meaning sleeper. The claim that ruqūd is a verbal noun applied to the agent, and that it is equal for the few and the many like rukūʿ and quʿūd—because fāʿil is not pluralized as fuʿūl—is rejected because grammarians have explicitly cited it as such, as stated in al-Mufaṣṣal and al-Tashīl.

This is a confirmation of what was not mentioned previously, relying on its prior mention: "We struck [a seal of sleep] upon their ears."

Wa-nuqallibuhum (And We turn them) fī ruqatihim kathīran (in their sleeping state often), dhāta al-yamīn (toward the right, i.e., the side adjacent to their right hands), wa-dhāta al-shimāl (and toward the left, i.e., the side adjacent to their left hands), so that the earth would not consume their bodies, as Saʿīd ibn Manṣūr and Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Ibn Jubayr. The Imām regarded this as unlikely, saying: "It is astonishing, for God—Exalted is He—who was able to keep them alive for that long period is also able to preserve their bodies without turning." It was answered that His wisdom required the preservation of their bodies to be according to established custom, even if we do not know the reason for that wisdom. Similar things occur regarding what was said about the sun’s "swerving" and its brother. It is also said that their turning might be a preservation of their custom in sleep: to turn right and left, out of care for their condition.

It is also said that it is possible this was a manifestation of His great power—Exalted is He—in their affair, as God combined for them both the deep sleep (indicated by "We struck upon their ears") and frequent turning; whereas, according to custom, deep sleep does not involve frequent turning. This is clearly remote.

There is disagreement regarding the times of their turning. Ibn Abī Ḥātim and Ibn Mardawayh recorded from Ibn ʿAbbās—may God be pleased with him—that they were turned once every six months. Others recorded from Abū ʿIyāḍ something similar. It is said they were turned once every year, on the day of Ashura. Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Abī Ḥātim recorded from Mujāhid that the turning was during the nine additional years, not otherwise. Qatādah recorded from Ibn Abī Ḥātim that this turning was during their first sleep—that is, the three hundred years—turning once every year, and it did not occur during the second sleep (the nine years).

The Imām refuted this, stating that there is no way for reason to reach these estimates, the wording of the Qur’an does not indicate them, and no authentic report has come concerning them. The apparent meaning of the verse indicates frequency, due to the use of the imperfect tense (nuqallibu), which denotes renewed continuity, along with the intensification implied. The apparent meaning is that "We turn them" is an inaugural statement. Al-Ṭībī allowed—based on what you heard from al-Zajjāj—that the sentence is in the place of a ḥāl (state), but you see what that is.

It was read wa-yuqallibuhum (and He turns them) with a yāʾ and a shadda (emphatic), the pronoun referring to God—Exalted is He—or, it is said, to the King. Al-Ḥasan read it—as narrated by al-Ahwāzī in al-Iqnāʿ—as wa-yuqallibuhum with an open yāʾ, a silent qāf, and a light lām. Ibn Jinnī narrated he read it as wa-taqallubuhum (and their turning) as a verbal noun in the accusative case; the interpretation is that it is the object of an implied verb indicated by "you would think them," meaning: "you see or witness their turning." It is also narrated from him that he read it likewise but in the nominative case, as an ibtidāʾ (initial subject), as Abū Ḥātim said, and the predicate—or what follows—is implied: "is a great sign, or one of the signs of God." Ibn Khālawayh narrated this reading from al-Yamānī and mentioned that ʿIkrimah read wa-tuqallibuhum with a tāʾ (as the second-person singular imperfect verb), interpreted as: "And [while] you are turning them." He made the sentence a ḥāl from the subject of "you think." This indicates how strongly they resemble the awake, such that they are deemed awake even while one is examining their conditions and their turning to the right and left.

Wa-kalbuhum (And their dog): The apparent meaning is the well-known barking animal. It has many names, for which Jalāl al-Suyūṭī dedicated a treatise. Kaʿb al-Aḥbār said: "It was a dog they passed by, and it followed them. They drove it away, but it returned repeatedly. It said to them: 'What do you want from me? Do not fear my presence; I love the beloved of God. Sleep, and I will guard you.'" It is narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās that it was a shepherd's dog they passed, so it followed their religion, went with them, and the dog followed them. ʿUbayd ibn ʿUmayr said: "It was a hunting dog belonging to one of them." It is also said it was a sheepdog. There is no harm in our Law in keeping a dog for that purpose, but otherwise—and other than what is associated with it—it is forbidden. In al-Bukhārī, from Ibn ʿUmar—may God be pleased with both—"Whoever keeps a dog that is not a hunting dog or a sheepdog, two qīrāṭs are deducted from his deeds every day," and in another version, one qīrāṭ.

There is disagreement about its color. Ibn Abī Ḥātim recorded via Sufyān: "A man in Kufa named ʿUbayd, who was not accused of lying, said to me: 'I saw the dog of the People of the Cave; it was red, as if it were an Anbijānī cloak.'" From Kathīr al-Nawwāʾ, he said: "The dog was yellow." It is said it was spotted, and this is narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās. Other things are also said.

As for its name, Ibn Abī Ḥātim recorded from al-Ḥasan that it was Qiṭmīr, from Mujāhid that it was Qiṭmūrā, and it is said Rayyān, Thawr, or others. Regarding its size, as narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās, it was larger than a Qalṭī (poodle) and smaller than a Kurdī (large breed). Ibn Abī Ḥātim recorded from ʿUbayd that he said: "I saw it small, Zīniyyā." Jalāl al-Suyūṭī said: "He meant Ṣīniyyā (Chinese)." In al-Khāzin’s commentary, the Qalṭī is defined as such. Some claimed that the dog here refers to a lion, which is one of its meanings in al-Qāmūs. It has been reported that the Prophet—peace be upon him—prayed against a disbeliever, saying: "O God, empower a dog of Your dogs against him," and he was mauled by a lion. This, however, is contrary to the apparent meaning. Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Ibn Jurayj: "I said to a scholar: 'They claim their dog was a lion.' He said: 'By the life of God, it was not a lion; it was a red dog they took out with them from their homes, called Qiṭmūrā.'" More remote is the claim of those who went so far as to say it was a cook for them who followed them, or one of them who sat at the door as their scout. Yes, Abū ʿAmr al-Zāhidī narrated from Thaʿlab’s servant that it was read wa-kālibuhum with a damma on the hamza replacing the bāʾ, and an alif after the kāf, from kala’a (to guard). It is not far-fetched to intend "the guard" (the man who watches), but the apparent meaning of the recited mutawātir reading requires the well-known dog as well. Applying that term to it is for its guarding of what it was entrusted to guard.

Regarding this reading, it is said that it is an interpretation or a corruption. Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq—may God be pleased with him—read it wa-kālibuhum with a bāʾ (as a noun of agent), meaning the "possessor of their dog," as you say lābin and tāmir (possessor of milk and dates). It is said regarding their dog that it will enter Paradise on the Day of Resurrection. From Khālid ibn Maʿdān: "There are no beasts in Paradise except the dog of the People of the Cave and the donkey of Balʿam." I have seen in some books that the she-camel of Ṣāliḥ and the ram of Ismāʿīl are also in Paradise. I have also seen that all animals considered pleasant in this world—like gazelles, peacocks, and what is useful to the believer, like sheep—will enter Paradise in a manner befitting that place and that creation. There is no reliable report for what I have mentioned. Yes, there are animals created in Paradise, and in a report whose authenticity is understood from al-Tirmidhī’s words, there is explicit mention of horses among them. And God knows best.

It has become famous that this dog will enter Paradise, such that some Shīʿa name their children Kalb-ʿAlī (Dog of ʿAlī), hoping for salvation by an a fortiori analogy to what was mentioned. They recite: "The youths of the cave—their dog attained salvation / How could the dog of ʿAlī not attain it tomorrow?" By my life, if ʿAlī—may God ennoble his face—accepted it as his dog, it would attain salvation, but I do not think he would accept it, as it is vicious.

Bāsiṭun dhirāʿayhi (stretching its forelegs): Extending them. The dhirāʿ (foreleg) is from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. Dhirāʿayhi is in the accusative because it is the object of bāsiṭ (active participle). It functions as a verb despite being in the sense of the past, and an active participle does not function if it is such, but because the intent is a narrative of a past state. Al-Kisāʾī, Hishām, and Abū Jaʿfar ibn Muḍāʾ went to the permissibility of the active participle functioning regardless—so there is no question and no answer.

Bil-waṣīd (at the entrance): The location of the door and the place of passage of the cave. They cited the verse: "In a space of open land, its waṣīd (threshold) is not blocked / To me, and my kindness is not denied therein." It is intended as the courtyard (fanāʾ) in the commentary narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās, Mujāhid, and ʿAṭiyyah. It is also said it means the threshold. It is intended as the earth adjacent to that, not the conventional meaning, so it should not be said that the cave has no door or threshold. Moreover, there is no prohibition against such a thing.

Ibn al-Mundhir and others recorded from Ibn Jubayr that waṣīd means the "hard ground" (ṣaʿīd), but that is not strong. Regarding the wisdom of it being at the threshold rather than dwelling with them, it is said: "The angels—peace be upon them—do not enter a house that has a dog." It is sometimes said: "That is because it was a guard," as indicated by what Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Ibn Jurayj, who said: "Stretching its forelegs at the threshold, holding the door of the cave for them." It is said it would fold its right ear and sleep on it when they turned to the right, and fold its left ear and sleep on it when they turned to the left. The apparent meaning is that it slept as they slept, but Ibn Abī Ḥātim recorded from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥumayd al-Makkī that its sustenance was made in licking its forelegs. It is apparent that its sleep was not as deep as theirs.

Law iṭṭalaʿta ʿalayhim (If you had caught sight of them): If you had examined and witnessed them. The origin of iṭṭilāʿ is attaining a thing through examination and witnessing. Ibn Waththāb and al-Aʿmash read law uṭṭuliʿa ʿalayhim with a damma on the wāw, likening it to the wāw of the pronoun, as it is sometimes given a damma when it meets a silent letter, such as ramū al-sahām. It is narrated that this is from Shaybah and Abū Jaʿfar.

La-wallayta minhum firāran (You would have turned away from them in flight): Meaning you would have turned your face from them and turned your back to them. Firāran (flight) is in the accusative either as a verbal noun for wallayta—since turning away and fleeing are from the same category, thus it is like jalasta quʿūdan (you sat a sitting)—or it is an implied la-fararta (you would have fled). It may also be an accusative of state, by interpreting it as an active participle, or by making it from the category of "it is only coming and going." It could also be an accusative for a reason (mafʿūl li-ajlih), meaning: "you would have returned for the sake of fleeing."

Wa-la-muli'ta minhum ruʿban (and you would have been filled with terror from them): Meaning, a fear that fills the chest. It is in the accusative as a second object, or it may be a specificator (tamyīz) transformed from the subject. That fear "fills" is a metaphor for its greatness, as it is said of beauty that it "fills the eyes."

In al-Baḥr, it is considered more remote to hold that it is a tamyīz transformed from the object, as in His—the Exalted—saying: "And We caused the earth to burst forth with springs," because if the verb was exerted upon it, it would not take an object like the mafʿūl bihi (direct object), unlike what is in the verse. The reason for what was mentioned is that God—the Mighty and Majestic—cast upon them such awe and majesty as He did. It is said the reason is the length of their hair and nails, the yellowness of their faces, and the change in their worn garments. It is also said it is because of the darkness of the place and its terrifying nature. Abū Ḥayyān refuted this, saying both statements are nothing, because if they were in that condition, they would have denied their own state and would not have said: "We have stayed a day or part of a day," and because the one who was sent to the city did not deny anything except the landmarks and the building, not his own state, and because they were in a good state such that the viewer would not distinguish between them and the awake, and they were in a hollow described by what passed—so how could their place be terrifying?

It was answered that it is not far-fetched that they were unaware of their own state, for one rising from sleep might be oblivious to many of his affairs. The claim of continued oblivion in the messenger and his denial of the landmarks does not negate the fact that people might deny his state and that he was in a changed state he did not notice. Also, it is possible they did not observe their state initially, so they said: "We have stayed a day or part of a day," then they noticed it and said: "Your Lord knows best how long you have stayed." Also, it is possible this address is to the Prophet—peace be upon him—and that state only occurred after their awakening, during which they sent their messenger to the city. Upon this, the lack of denial by the messenger of his own state is not harmful, because nothing happened to him that he would deny afterward. The frightening nature of the place may have happened after this as well, by its changing over the passage of time. To a fair-minded person, the weakness of these answers is evident. What one should rely upon is that the reason for this is the awe that God—Exalted is He—cast upon them while they were in their cave. And if their hair and nails had grown, they had not grown to the extent that one who sees them would deny them. Some commentators chose the view that God—Exalted is He—did not change their state or appearance at all, so that it might be a clear sign. The address here is like the address in what preceded, and on the probability that it is to him—peace be upon him—it implies that they remained in that state which necessitates the flight of the observer and his increased terror until after the descent of the verse. So, whoever does not say this does not say that.

Ibn Abī Shaybah, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Abī Ḥātim recorded from Ibn ʿAbbās who said: "We went on a campaign with Muʿāwiyah toward the Roman territory. We passed by the cave that contains the People of the Cave mentioned in the Qur’an. Muʿāwiyah said: 'If only it were revealed for us so we could look at them.' Ibn ʿAbbās said to him: 'That is not for you; God—Exalted is He—has forbidden that to one who is better than you, as He said: If you had caught sight of them, you would have turned away from them in flight and been filled with terror from them.' Muʿāwiyah said: 'I will not stop until I know their knowledge,' and he sent men and said: 'Go, enter the cave, and look at them.' They went, and when they entered, God—Exalted is He—sent a wind upon them that cast them out." It is said that Muʿāwiyah did not act upon the implication of Ibn ʿAbbās’s words, may God be pleased with them both, due to his belief that their state had changed from what it was, or a desire for knowledge of them if possible.

Ibn Abī Ḥātim recorded from Shahr ibn Ḥawshab who said: "I had a companion of a strong will. He passed by the side of the cave and said: 'I will not stop until I look at them.' It was said to him: 'Do not do it. Do you not read: If you had caught sight of them... etc.?' He refused to do anything but look. He peered over them, his eyes turned white, and his hair changed. He would tell people that they were seven in number." Perhaps one might be encouraged by such reports regarding their existence today, or rather, their remaining in that state with which one cannot stand to observe their conditions. There is a dispute regarding this.

Al-Suhaylī recorded from a group the statement of their existence, and from Ibn ʿAbbās its denial. ʿAbd al-Razzāq and Ibn Abī Ḥātim recorded from ʿIkrimah that Ibn ʿAbbās went on a campaign with Ḥabīb ibn Maslamah and they passed by the cave, and there were bones in it. A man said: "These are the bones of the People of the Cave." Ibn ʿAbbās said: "Their bones have vanished for more than three hundred years." It is not hidden what the contradiction is between this report and the previous one from him, or even the other one as well. What the heart inclines toward is that they are not in existence today, and if they were, they are not in that state which God—Exalted is He—pointed toward, and that the address in the verse is to no one in particular, and that the intent of it is to inform that they were in that state at that time. What Ibn Mardawayh recorded from Ibn ʿAbbās that the Prophet—peace be upon him—said: "The People of the Cave are helpers of the Mahdi," even if we assume its authenticity, does not indicate their existence today in that state. And he—upon him be peace—by the assumption of the general address, is not one of the individuals specified by it, for he—upon him be peace—witnessed that which is greater than them: from the dominion of the heavens and the earth. Whoever made him—upon him be peace—specified, said: "The meaning is, if you had caught sight of them, you would have turned away... due to the judgment of custom and human nature. The lack of the result in his—upon him be peace—seeing that which is greater than them is a supernatural matter, depending on his angelic strength, or rather, on what is above it. Or, the meaning is: if you had caught sight of them yourself, without Us showing them to you, you would have turned away in flight... etc. His—upon him be peace—witnessing what he witnessed was by God—the Mighty and Majestic—showing him, and there is a difference between the two witnessings."

It is told that Moses—upon him be peace—had a stomach ache and complained to his Lord—the Exalted. He said to him: "Go to such-and-such plant in such-and-such place and eat of it." He went and ate, and what he was feeling departed. Then it returned to him years later. He went to that plant and ate of it, but he did not benefit. He said: "O Lord, You know best. My stomach ached in such-and-such a year, and You commanded me to go to such-and-such plant; I went, ate, and benefited. Then what I was feeling returned, and I went to that and ate, but did not benefit." He—the Exalted—said: "Do you know, Moses, what the reason for that is?" He said: "No, O Lord." He said: "The reason is that the first time you went to the plant from Us, and the second time you went to it from yourself."

Among the views that are considered objectionable is what is told of some Sufis, that he heard a reciter reading this verse and said: "If I had caught sight of them, I would not have turned away in flight, nor would I have been filled with terror from them."

What is reported from some of them as an answer, that the speaker’s intent was to affirm the status of childhood for himself—for a child does not fear a snake, for example, if he sees it, and does not distinguish between it and a rope—does not dispel the objection even if we accept that this was his intent. That is similar to the saying of one who said that God—the Exalted and High—does not know the unseen, meaning that there is no unseen for Him—the Exalted—to be the object of His knowledge. And how excellent was the saying of ʿUmar—may God be pleased with him: "Speak to people in what they understand. Do you want God and His Messenger—peace be upon him—to be denied?"

This is and [regarding the reading]: Ibn ʿAbbās, the two Haramis, Abū Ḥaywah, and Ibn Abī ʿAblah read la-mulli'ta with a shadda on the lām and the hamza. Abū Jaʿfar and Shaybah read it with a shadda on the lām and changing the hamza to a yāʾ. Al-Zuhrī read it with a light lām and the change [to a yāʾ]. Abū Jaʿfar and ʿĪsā read ruʿban with a damma on the ʿayn.