Al-Kahf: (19) "And similarly, We awakened them so that they might question one another..."
(And similarly, We awakened them) means: just as We caused them to sleep this long slumber—which is understood from what has passed—We awakened them. The object being likened is the awakening, and that to which it is likened is the aforementioned slumber. The point of comparison is that each of them is a sign pointing to His dazzling, perfect power (Exalted and Majestic is He).
(So that they might question one another) means: so that some of them might ask others, resulting in the aforementioned profound wisdoms. Making this the cause for the awakening—which is already explained by what preceded—is said to be because the questioning is one of the outcomes resulting from it. Restricting the mention to this is because it entails all other effects. Many have stated that the "lam" (in li-yatasa'alu) is for the consequence (al-'aqibah), and al-Khafaji favored this, claiming that whoever interprets it this way observed that the purpose of His (the Exalted's) act is to demonstrate the perfection of His power, not the questioning itself. Reflect on this.
(A speaker among them said)—a resumption to explain their questioning. It is said: the speaker was their leader, Maximiliana; it is also said to be the keeper of their provisions, Yamlikha.
(How long have you stayed?)—meaning: how many days have you remained asleep? It is as if he said this because he saw that their state contradicted what was customary in general. It is also said that they were distressed by the prayers they had missed, so they said:
(They said: "We have stayed a day or part of a day")—or [the "or"] is for doubt, as many have said. The intent is: "We have not verified the duration of our stay." That is, "We do not know whether the duration is the length of a day or the length of a part of a day." The obvious interpretation is that they said this because the intoxication of sleep had not yet left their sight or their insight, so they did not look at the signs. This is free from ambiguity, whether their sleep and awakening were both during the day or not. The well-known view is that their sleep was in the morning and their awakening was at the end of the day. It is said that they did not know whether their awakening was on the day they slept or on the day after, so they said what they said. It was objected that this requires hesitation between "part of a day," "a day," and "a part." Hence, it was said that "or" is for transition (idrab). This is because when they woke up at the end of the day and were inside the cave, and the intoxication of sleep had not yet left them, they said before looking: "We have stayed a day." Then, when they verified that the sun had not yet set, they said: "or part of a day." You know that the apparent meaning is that it is for doubt, and the objection is dispelled by intending what you have heard. Indeed, it is a metaphor here. Abu Hayyan narrated that it is for detailing, in the sense that some said: "We stayed a day," and others said: "We stayed part of a day." The statement of each is based on the predominant assumption, as has been said, so it is not a lie. It is not hidden that the view that it is for detailing is one the mind barely considers, and there is no need to base the matter on predominant assumption to deny it being a lie, based on what we mentioned: that the intent is that they did not verify its quantity, as the scholars of rhetoric mentioned regarding the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) when he performed the taslim by mistake in a four-rak'ah prayer, and Dhu al-Yadayn said to him: "Has the prayer been shortened, or have you forgotten, O Messenger of Allah?" He replied: "Neither of those has occurred."
(They said: "Your Lord knows best how long you have stayed")—meaning: you do not know the duration of your stay; only Allah, the Glorified, knows it. This is a response from them to the first group, observing the best of manners. With this, as has been said, the division into the two parties mentioned previously is realized. It is said that the speaker of both statements is the same, but the situation is different. This is countered by the fact that the noble structure does not support it; for the resumption in the narration and the address in what is narrated dictate that the speech follows the method of dialogue and response, otherwise it would have been said: "Then they said: Our Lord knows best..."
(So send one of you)—meaning: one of your number. He did not say "your single one" (wahidukum), to avoid suggesting the intent of "your leader," for it is often said, "The one (wahid) of the people has come," meaning their leader.
(With this silver of yours)—meaning: with your coined dirhams, as is famous among linguists. It is said that al-wariq is silver, whether coined or not. It is argued for this by what occurred in the hadith of Arfajah: when his nose was cut off, he fashioned a nose of silver (wariq), and it rotted, so he fashioned one of gold. It is apparent that wariq here refers to uncoined silver. Al-Asma'i's statement, as narrated by al-Qutaybi, that wariq in the hadith is with a fatha on the ra and refers to the paper upon which one writes—because silver does not rot—is not relied upon, and the rotting he mentioned has no validity. Abu 'Amr, Hamzah, Abu Bakr, al-Hasan, al-A'mash, al-Yazidi, Ya'qub (in one transmission), Khalaf, and Abu 'Ubayd and Ibn Sa'dan read (it) with a sukun on the ra. Abu Raja' read it with a kasra on the waw, sukun on the ra, and assimilation (idgham) of the qaf into the kaf. Similarly, Isma'il narrated from Ibn Muhaysin, and from him (Ibn Muhaysin) it is also narrated that he read it likewise, except that he gave the ra a kasra so that the meeting of two sukun-bearing letters would not occur in an irregular manner, as in the other reading. By this, it was objected to; it was answered that this is permissible and occurs in the speech of the Arabs, albeit as an anomaly. It has been read (ni'ma) with a sukun on the 'ayn and assimilation. Regarding what was said—that it is impossible to pronounce—it was countered that this is a slip. Al-Zajjaj narrated that it was read with a kasra on the waw and sukun on the ra without assimilation. Ali (may Allah honor his face) read it as (bawariqikum) on the pattern of fa'il, making it a collective noun like baqir (cattle) and hamil (cargo).
He described the silver with His saying (the Exalted): (this), which implies that the speaker brought it to hand it to some of his companions. His implying that he handed it to him is far-fetched. In their carrying it is evidence of preparing for the needs of subsistence for anyone who leaves his home by carrying provisions and the like; it does not contradict reliance upon Allah (the Exalted), as in the hadith: "Tie it and rely." Indeed, some of the elite said: "The reliance of the elite is abandoning the causes entirely." From this is what is narrated about Khalid ibn al-Walid drinking poison, the walking of Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas and Abu Muslim al-Khawlani with armies across the surface of the sea, and Tamim entering the cave from which the fire of al-Harrah emerged to repel it by the command of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him).
Imam Ahmad, Ishaq, and other Imams have specified the permissibility of entering deserts without provisions and abandoning earning and medical treatment for those whose certainty and reliance are strong. Imam Ahmad interpreted reliance as the severance of expectation through despairing of created beings, arguing for this by the words of Ibrahim (peace be upon him) when Jibril (peace be upon him) approached him on the day he was thrown into the fire and said to him: "Do you have a need?" (He replied): "As for you, no." Discarding causes is not the path of the reliance of the elite according to the Sufis only, as the speech of some of the virtuous suggests, but it has come from others as well.
(To the city)—the well-known one, which is the city they departed from. It is said it is now called Tarsus, and its name on the day they left it was Ephesus. By this, the two previous narrations are reconciled. This statement was issued by them as an aversion to deep searching and an orientation toward what concerns them according to the situation, as the fa (in falyanzur) indicates. Some mentioned that this is from the style of "the wise approach," like his saying: "You complain to me about the preoccupation with the feast, while you have seen the guests approaching my home. I said, as if I did not hear her speech: They are the guests; I exerted effort in their feast and my sacrifice."
(Let him look at which is purest in food)—meaning: the most lawful, for the people of the city in their era used to slaughter for the idols, as Sa'id ibn Mansur and others narrated from Ibn Abbas. In another narration, they used to slaughter swine. Al-Dahhak said: "Most of their wealth was usurped." Azka (purest) is from zakah, and its root is growth and increase, which can be metaphysical/eschatological or sensory/worldly. The first was intended because of the reward and good outcome in seeking the lawful. Ibn al-Sa'ib and Muqatil said: "Meaning most pleasant." If it is in the sense of "most lawful," because that applies to it, it returns to the first (meaning). If it is in its apparent meaning, then the increase is said to be sensory and worldly. 'Ikrimah said: "Meaning most numerous."
Yaman ibn Rayyan said: "Meaning cheapest." Qatadah said: "Meaning best," and this is best. Upon it, as with the previous ones, as has been said, the increase is also sensory and worldly. Some claimed that by azka, they meant rice, others said dates, and others said raisins. Good opinion of the youths requires that they sought the lawful. "Looking" could be from the looking of the heart or the looking of the eye. Ayyuhum (which of them) is an interrogative and a subject, and azka is its predicate; the sentence is one to which the verb is attached due to the interrogation. It is also permitted that ayya is a relative noun, acting as the object of falyanzur, and azka is the predicate of a deleted subject, which is the head of the relative clause. The pronoun in ayyuha is either for the city—the speech being based on an estimated addition, i.e., "which of its people"—or for the city, referring to its people metaphorically. In the speech, there is usage, not deletion. As for what is understood from the context of the speech, it is as if it were said: "Let him look at which of the foods or victuals is purest in food."
(Then let him bring you a provision from it)—meaning: from that which is purest in food. Min (from) is for the beginning of the end-point or for partitivity. It is said the pronoun is for the silver, so min is for substitution. Furthermore, if the youths had not previously sought the lawful, their intent with "provision" here might be the lawful, even if it is not specifically designated as such to us.
The verse is used as evidence—and what contains its explanation will come, God willing—for the validity of agency (wakalah) and representation. Ibn al-'Arabi said: "It is the strongest verse regarding that." In it, as al-Kiya said, there is evidence for the permissibility of mixing the dirhams of a group, purchasing with them, and eating from the food that is between them in partnership, even if they differ in what they eat. Indeed, there is no harm for the heavy eater to increase his share of the dirhams.
(And let him be subtle)—meaning: let him take upon himself subtlety in the transaction so that no dispute occurs that might lead to his identification, or let him take upon himself subtlety in concealment, entering and leaving. It is said: let him take upon himself that so he is not cheated. Therefore, His saying (the Exalted): (And let him not make anyone aware of you)—meaning: let him not do what leads to anyone from the people of the city becoming aware of you—is an establishing of this. According to the first two (interpretations), it is a confirmation of the command for subtlety, and explaining it with what was mentioned is by way of metonymy, like "I shall not see you here." The Imam explained it as "Let him not inform anyone about you," so it is upon its apparent meaning. Al-Hasan read (wa-li-yatlattaf) with a kasra on the lam of command. From Qutaybah al-Mayyal: (wa-li-yutlattaf) with a damma on the ya, in the passive voice. He, Abu Salih, and Yazid ibn al-Qa'qa' read (wa-la yush'iranna bikum ahadun) with the verb in the active voice and ahadun in the nominative as the agent.
