Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:22

"They will say": The pronoun refers—along with the two verbs that follow, as chosen by Ibn Atiyyah and some investigators—to the Jews contemporary to the Prophet (peace be upon him) who were debating the story of the People of the Cave. This supports the statement of al-Hasan and others: that they [the People of the Cave] existed before the mission of Moses (peace be upon him), as it indicates that they [the Jews] had some knowledge of their circumstances, which necessitates that they were mentioned in the Torah. And in that, there is what is in it.

The apparent meaning is that this is an announcement of what had not yet occurred; it is as if it were said: "They will say [this] when you narrate the story of the People of the Cave, or when they are asked about their count."

"Three": That is, three individuals. "The fourth of them": That is, making them four by his joining them. "Their dog": For "three" is a predicate for an omitted subject, and "the fourth of them is their dog" is a nominal sentence. The active participle [rabi‘uhum] does not govern [the following noun] because it is in the past tense, and the sentence is in the position of an adjective for "three." The pronoun refers to "three," not the [omitted] subject; hence, it was sufficient to omit [the subject]. Otherwise, the apparent phrasing would have been: "They are three and a dog." But because it was intended to specify them with a judgment of remarkable status, it was shifted to what was mentioned to alert—by the adjective that denotes preference and distinction—that those youths are not like any three who accompanied each other.

Thus, Allah the Exalted joined in His العزيز book the lowliest of animals with the blessing of their companionship, along with the group of those who devoted themselves to Him and remained in seclusion in His proximity (glory be to Him). The same is said for what follows. This parsing was adopted by Abu al-Baqa and chosen by the scholar al-Tayyibi, who pointed to the nuance mentioned. He included in this series, along with the verse, the hadith: "What is your opinion regarding two, of whom Allah the Exalted is the third?" This caused some eminent scholars to condemn him to the point of accusing him of infidelity. By my life, they have wronged him and his intended meaning was hidden from them, so they did not understand it. Ibn al-Hajib did not permit the sentence to be in the position of an adjective, just as neither he nor others like Abu al-Baqa permitted it to be a circumstantial clause (hal). Instead, he deemed it a predicate after a predicate for the omitted subject. The complete discussion on this will follow, God willing.

Estimating the discriminant of the number as "persons" is better than estimating it as "men," because if they were three men, they would become four with their dog, due to the difference in the two genders, and the lack of a requirement for unity of gender in such a case is rejected by common usage, in addition to it being contrary to what the grammarians mentioned. The saying that the dog was attached to the rational beings by the honor of their companionship is poetic imagery. Ibn Muhaysin recited it [thālathah] by assimilating the tha into the ta, similar to saying "ab‘ath tilka." This is favored by the closeness of their points of articulation and their both being voiceless.

"And they will say five, the sixth of them is their dog": This is a conjunction to "they will say." Although the imperfect verb is common to both the present and the future, the intended meaning here is the latter, based on the context of what preceded it; hence, the sin [future marker] was omitted from it. If you coordinate it with what falls under the scope of the sin, it enters into its ruling and becomes specific to the future by virtue of it. However, it has been said that coordinating it to that is an affectation. Shibl bin ‘Ibad narrated from Ibn Kathir "five" with a fatha on the mim, which is a dialectal variant similar to the fatha and sukun in "ten." Ibn Muhaysin recited it with a kasra on the kha and the mim, and with the assimilation of the ta into the sin. From him also is the assimilation of the nunation (tanwin) into the sin without nasalization.

"Pelted by the unseen": That is, throwing out an unseen, hidden report that they have no access to and bringing it forth, or a conjecture of that. According to the first interpretation, "pelted" is used metaphorically—that is, throwing stones that do not strike a target, and it is a target for the speaker without knowledge or consideration, after having been compared to it. In al-Kashf, it is stated that he made the speech about what is unseen to them equivalent to stones being pelted; it is not intended to address a specific addressee, and if it were, it would miss the mark because it is not built upon certainty, just as pelted stones rarely hit the pelted object with accuracy, unlike an arrow and the like. This is why they said "pelted by the unseen" (rajman bi-l-ghayb) and did not say "throwing at it" (ramyan bi-hi). As for throwing in the context of insults and the like, the focus is on its effect on the honor of the pelted, like the effect of an arrow on the target.

According to the second [interpretation], mentioning a matter without certain knowledge and peace of heart is likened to throwing a stone which has no benefit in being thrown and does not hit its target. Then it was used metaphorically, and "pelted" (rajm) was put in place of "conjecture" (zann) until it became a conventional reality for it. In al-Kashf it is also said that when their saying "pelted by conjecture" (rajman bi-z-zann) became frequent, they understood from the verbal noun its meaning without looking at the related object, so they said "pelted by the unseen" (rajman bi-l-ghayb), meaning "conjecturing about it." On this came the saying of Zuhayr: "And war is nothing but what you have known and tasted; and it is not, concerning it, mere pelted talk," where he meant the conjectured. The accusative case of "pelted" here is on two facets: either as a circumstantial clause from the pronoun in the two verbs (i.e., being pelters), or as a verbal noun from them, for "pelted" and "said" are one. In al-Bahr, it is said that he included the meaning of "pelted" in "said," or it is from an omitted [verb] starting the sentence, or it occupies the position of a circumstantial clause from the pronoun of the two verbs together—i.e., they are pelting a pelted [guess]. Abu Hayyan permitted it to be in the accusative as a resultative object (maf‘ul min ajlihi), i.e., they say that because of their pelting with the unseen, or because of their conjecture about it.

"And they will say seven, and the eighth of them is their dog": The intended meaning is also the future, and the discussion on its conjunction is like the discussion on the conjunction of the previous one. The sentence occurring after the number is in the position of an adjective for it, like the two previous sentences, as stated by al-Zamakhshari. He did not make the waw a barrier to that; rather, he mentioned that it is the waw that enters upon a sentence occurring as an adjective for an indefinite noun, just as it enters upon one occurring as a circumstantial clause for a definite noun in your saying: "A man came to me, and with him was another," and "I passed by Zayd, and in his hand was a sword." From this is His saying (the Almighty): "And We did not destroy any city except that it had a known record." Its benefit is to emphasize the adhesion of the adjective to the described noun and to indicate that its attribution to it is a fixed and established matter. It is this which signaled here that those who said what was mentioned said it out of fixed knowledge and peace of mind, and they did not pelt with conjecture as others had. Thus, it is the truth, unlike the first two statements. The evidence for that is that He (the Almighty) followed the first two with His saying: "pelted by the unseen," and followed this one with His saying: "Say: My Lord is better aware of their number," meaning stronger and more ancient in the knowledge of it. "None knows them" —that is, none knows their number, according to what comes to mind when considering the context— "except a few." Based on the signaling of the waw and what was mentioned, the words of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) indicate this. It has been narrated that he said: "When the waw occurred, the number was terminated," meaning no number remained after it to which one might turn, and it was established that they were seven, and the eighth of them is their dog, with certainty and decisiveness.

Ata stated that this "few" are from the People of the Book. It is said they are from humanity in general, and this is what is necessitated by what al-Tabarani extracted in al-Awsat with a sound chain from Ibn Abbas that he said: "I am among those few." More than one person extracted it from him through various paths, and Ibn Abi Hatim extracted the like from Ibn Mas'ud. Some claimed that the meaning is "except for a few of the angels (peace be upon them)," which no human accepts. The one affirmed in this exception is knowledge, and that does not harm the fact that the Ultimate Knowledge belongs to Him (the Almighty).

As for the waw being as al-Zamakhshari mentioned, Ibn al-Munir agreed and said after quoting him: "This is the truth, not like the saying that it is the 'waw of eight,' for that is a matter that does not stand on firm ground for its proponent." The objection they raised regarding that will be mentioned in its place, God willing. Abu al-Baqa said: "If a sentence occurs as an adjective for an indefinite noun, it is permissible for the waw to enter it, and this is the correct view regarding the entry of the waw in 'the eighth of them'." More than one person objected to this. Abu Hayyan said: "The fact that the waw enters upon a sentence occurring as an adjective indicating the adhesion of the adjective to the described noun and the stability of its attachment is something not known to grammarians. Rather, they established that an adjective which is not a sentence cannot be conjoined to another adjective unless the meanings differ, so that the conjunction indicates diversity. But if they do not differ, conjunction is not permitted. This is in singular nouns. As for sentences that occur as adjectives, they are further from permitting that."

They refuted those who went to the view that Sibawayh’s saying "As for what comes with the meaning and is not a noun or a verb..." up to "...and is not a noun, etc." is an adjective for "meaning," and that the waw entered the sentence, [by saying] that this is not the speech of the Arabs. It is not their speech [to say] "I passed by a man and he eats," under the estimation of an adjective. As for His saying (the Almighty): "except that it had a known record," the sentence therein is a circumstantial clause. It is enough of a refutation of al-Zamakhshari’s view that we do not know any scholar of grammar who went to it. The author of al-Fara'id said: "The entry of the waw between the adjective and the described noun is not straight because of the unity of the adjective and the described noun in essence and judgment, and the emphasis of adhesion necessitates duality."

Moreover, we say: We do not concede that the waw benefits emphasis and the intensity of adhesion. The most that is in the matter is that it benefits conjunction, and conjunction informs of duality, while the meeting of the adjective and the described noun informs of unity in view of the essence. The author of al-Miftah mentioned that the saying of one who said: "The waw in the saying of the Almighty '...and it had a known record' enters between the adjective and the described noun," is a mistake on his part; rather, it is the waw of the circumstantial clause, and the owner of the condition is "city," which is described, i.e., "We did not destroy any city of the cities except that it had [etc.]." As for "A man came to me and with him was another," it has two faces: one is that they are two conjoined sentences, and the second is that "another" is conjoined to "man," i.e., "A man and another man came to me." He avoided "Two men came to me" so that it would be understood that they came accompanied. As for the waw in "I passed by Zayd and in his hand was a sword," its entry between the circumstantial clause and its owner is permissible because the circumstantial clause is in the status of a sentence, unlike the adjective relative to the described noun. For "Zayd came riding" is in the status of "Zayd came while he was riding," unlike "Zayd the rider came." Understand that.

Even if we concede that it enters between the adjective and the described noun to emphasize adhesion, the indication that its being described by it is a fixed, established matter is not conceded. Where is the evidence for it? And [the idea] that the waw is what signaled that the mentioned saying was out of fixed knowledge and peace of mind is in the utmost remoteness. The saying that the following [verse] indicates that: if it is meant that it indicates the waw signaling what was mentioned, its invalidity is apparent. And if it is meant that it indicates the truthfulness of those who said the last statement and the lack of truthfulness of those who said the first two, it is conceded that following the first two statements with "pelted by the unseen" indicates a lack of truthfulness with a doubt-free indication. But we do not concede that not following the last statement with it—and following it with what it was followed by—indicates that. Even if we concede that, it indicates it with a weak indication. We also do not concede the indication of Ibn Abbas’s speech for what was mentioned. The apparent meaning is that he knew that the last statement was true from the Truthful and Trusted one (peace be upon him), and that his intent from his saying "When the waw occurred, the number was terminated" is that what the waw occurred in is the truth, and the number was terminated by it.

The truth is that the waw is a conjunction waw, and the sentence after it is conjoined to the sentence before it. The scholar al-Tayyibi supported al-Zamakhshari and answered what was objected against him, saying: "Know that before starting the answer, it is necessary to clarify the intended meaning to refine the research. The waw here is not literal, and it is not considered in the metaphor to be a specific transfer; rather, what is considered in it is the type of relationship. They mentioned that metaphor in the custom of rhetoric is better than literalism and more eloquent, and that the pivot of the science of rhetoric is sound taste, which is more beneficial than the taste of education. It does not depend on authoritative hearing, and this is not the science of grammar. Metaphor is not restricted to nouns and verbs but occurs in particles."

The commentator of al-Lubab transmitted from Sibawayh that the waw in their saying "I sold the sheep and a dirham" is in the meaning of "with" (ba). Its verification is that the waw is for conjunction and the ba is for attachment, and they are from the same valley; so he followed with it the path of metaphor. When that is known, let it be known that the meaning of his saying "its benefit is to emphasize the adhesion of the adjective to the described noun" is that the adjective has a type of connection to the described noun. If it is intended to emphasize the adhesion, the waw is placed between them to signal that this adjective is inseparable from the described noun. To this is the sign in what follows from his speech, and that the circumstantial clause is in reality an adjective; there is no difference except by consideration. Do you not see that if an adjective for an indefinite noun precedes it, it becomes the same as a circumstantial clause? If they were not united, that would not be correct. Then, your saying "A man came to me and with him was another" and your saying "I passed by Zayd and with him was another," when they were equal in form—except for the consideration of definiteness and indefiniteness—it is as if their judgment is equal regarding the waw. This is what al-Zamakhshari intended by bringing both examples, not as some understood.

As for what the author of al-Fara'id said in justifying the impossibility of the waw entering between the adjective and the described noun due to their unity in essence and judgment, which contradicts what the entry of the waw necessitates of diversity, it is based on the waw being a conjunction, because that is what necessitates diversity, as al-Sakaki said. He explained the face of its metaphor for the mere purpose of connection. As for his saying regarding "A man came to me and with him was another" that they are two sentences, it is as you see. As for his saying "Zayd came riding is in the status of Zayd came while he was riding," it is inverted, for the origin in the circumstantial clause is singularity, as indicated by the speech of Ibn al-Hajib and other prominent figures. As for his conceding the entry for emphasizing adhesion, and from it the indication that the attribution is a fixed and established matter, it is one of the wonders. How can he concede the emphasis and not concede its benefit? And he pushes away the remaining objections. That which al-Zamakhshari relied upon is not from the door of certain proofs, but they are from the door of indicators, and they are sufficient in these stations.

Ibn al-Hajib said: "It is not permissible for 'the fourth of them is their dog' and 'the sixth of them is their dog' to be an adjective for what precedes them, nor a circumstantial clause, due to the lack of an operator with the lack of the waw. It is permissible for each of them to be a predicate after a predicate for the omitted subject. If predicates are multiple, it is permissible for the second of them to be conjoined with the waw or not." This is if it is conceded that the meaning in the sentences is one. But if it is said that His saying (the Almighty) "And the eighth of them is their dog" is a commencement from Him (the Almighty), not a narration about them, then he understands that those who said "seven" were correct, and it is not necessary for it to be a predicate after a predicate. Strengthening this is the mention of "pelted by the unseen" before the third one, which indicates that it is contrary to what preceded it regarding "pelted by the unseen," so it is absolutely the truth. However, this face weakens from the aspect that Allah (the Almighty) said: "None knows them except a few." If "And the eighth of them is their dog" were made a confirmation from Him (the Almighty) for whoever said "seven," then it would be necessary that the one who knows that be many, for the reports of Allah are truth. This indicates that He did not confirm any of them. If that is so, it is necessary that all the sentences be equal in meaning, and it has become impossible for the last to be a description, so it must be that they are all the same. The end.

It is understood that the waw is what prevents the adjective status, and the disease is the disease, so the medicine is the medicine. His saying: "And if it is so, it is necessary etc." is a statement far from the requirements of rhetoric, because in every difference there are benefits, and the eloquent one is he who looks to those benefits, not he who turns it into lengthening and padding in speech. Also, one of the three statements must be true in order for His saying (the Almighty) "None knows them except a few" to conform with His saying (the Almighty) "pelted by the unseen," because the first two statements were driven away by it, so this one is the truth. Its being followed by it is a sign of its truthfulness, and that is missing according to what the questioner went to. With this, where is the sweetness of the speech and where is the subtlety that understandings enjoy?

What he mentioned of the necessity of the one who knows it being many—on the supposition of "And the eighth of them is their dog" being a commencement from Him (the Almighty) because the reports of Allah are truth—is not free from debate. For the confirmer is then the Muslims, and they are few relative to others, and there is no restriction of "few" to what is under ten. Even if Ibn Abi Hatim extracted from Wahb bin Munabbih that he said: "Every 'few' in the Quran is under ten," that is in the domain of prevention, and under proving it is much trouble. Moreover, it is possible to say: The intended meaning is the fewness of those who knew it before His confirmation (the Almighty), and it is not far-fetched that they were few in their own limit—whether they were from the Muslims, or from the People of the Book, or from both. Yes, the statement of commencement is something that should not be turned to, even if some interpreters went to it. This is so, and a group agreed in the support, among them the Master of Investigators and the Pillar of Verifiers. He said: "The apparent meaning is that His saying (the Almighty) 'And the eighth of them is their dog' is an adjective for seven, as its two brothers testify. Also, seven is not in the status of being described, as was said regarding 'city' in His saying (the Almighty) 'And We did not destroy any city except that it had a known record,' so that carrying it on the circumstantial clause would be correct by consensus. There is no doubt that the meaning of conjunction suits the meaning of adhesion, and the door of metaphor is open. So this waw is carried upon it to emphasize the adhesion of the adjective to the described noun, and this would also be a branch of the conjunction [waw], like the one meaning 'with,' and the circumstantial, and the parenthetical."

He supported this also by what was narrated from Ibn Abbas, and he brought as an objection to the justification of the one who forbids it being a circumstantial clause, due to the indefinite noun not being in the status of being described, that the justifications for the coming of a circumstantial clause from an indefinite noun are not restricted to its being described or in the status of being described, as in the verse he mentioned. For he mentioned in al-Mughni that among the justifications is the pairing of the circumstantial sentence with the waw. So this should be remembered. Ibn Malik agreed with those who refuted him and said in Sharh al-Tashil: "What the author of al-Kashshaf went to regarding the waw being between the adjective and the described noun is corrupt from five aspects..."

[Discussion of grammatical objections omitted for brevity]

Wonder is at what he mentioned in the fourth aspect, for it is a delusion that would be considered strange from children, let alone the masters of men. So reflect upon that, and Allah (the Almighty) will take charge of your guidance. Some said: The pronouns of the three verbs are for those who were debating the story of the People of the Cave in the era of the Prophet (peace be upon him) from the People of the Book and the Muslims, not in the way of assigning each of the verbs to all of them, but to some of them. The first statement is for the Jews, according to what Ibn Abi Hatim extracted from al-Suddi. It is said [it was] for a leader of the leaders of the Arab Christians of Najran, and he was a Jacobite, and he had arrived with a group of them to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). The mention of the People of the Cave occurred, so he mentioned from their count what Allah (the Exalted) narrated. Perhaps the expression with the plural pronoun is because of the agreement of those who were with him in that. The second statement, according to what was narrated from al-Suddi also, is [for] the Christians, and he did not restrict them. It is said [it was for] al-Aqib and those with him from the Christians of Najran, and they were also arriving and were Nestorians. The third statement is for some Muslims, and when He (the Almighty) narrated the statements before they were said, He taught them the truth and guided them to it by not arranging that statement in the series of "pelted by the unseen," as He did with its two brothers, and by changing its structure by inserting the waw and following it up with what He followed it up with, as you heard regarding that being a sign of reality. The intended meaning by "few" according to this is those whom Allah (the Almighty) guided to be guided by these signs, like Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both). It passed not long ago that he counted himself among that, and he mentioned what its apparent meaning is as a citation by the waw.

It is said that they knew that count from a revelation other than what was mentioned, by the Prophet (peace be upon him) having informed them of that from Allah’s informing him of it. This was objected to by saying that if it were so, it would not have been hidden from the [learned] Rabbi, nor would he have needed to cite [the verse], and the Muslims would have been equal to him in knowledge of that. It was answered that there is no prevention to the Rabbi standing upon the report with a few Muslims, and it is not necessary from the Prophet (peace be upon him) informing of something that all the companions stand upon it. How many reports contained a legal judgment that one of them was unique in narrating from him (peace be upon him)—may Allah be pleased with them all! So what is your opinion regarding what is from the door of stories that did not contain that? His citation (may Allah be pleased with him) is a text that does not negate standing upon it; rather, it may coexist with it based on what you stood upon a moment ago, so it is not a text for not standing upon it.

It was objected to the statement that the origin of the knowledge was the teaching from this revelation—because of what it contained of signs—that it necessitates that the companions hearing the verse be equal to Ibn Abbas in knowledge, similar to what the objector mentioned. Rather, because they are the Arabs who sucked the breast of rhetoric in the cradle of eloquence, and the lights of prophecy—poured from the sun of the Divine Presence—shined on the horizons of their hearts and the pages of their minds from the equatorial sunrise of their faith. Rarely was a verse revealed and it did not cast its staff in the abodes of their hearing, due to their abundant desire for listening and his (peace be upon him) increased concern for their listening. Whenever al-Zamakhshari and his likes understood from this verse what they understood, his companions (peace be upon him) did not understand that, and they are who they are? Would it cross the mind of anyone who has the slightest intelligence that the non-Arabs felt it, and most of those Arabs did not feel it? Or how is it imagined that the secrets of the eloquence of the Quran manifest to one who does not know its inimitability except after hardship, and it is veiled from one who knows that by mere instinct? This objection is hardly repelled except by committing to the view that those who heard this verse were few, because it was revealed in Mecca, and among the Muslims there was a scarcity, with the lack of ease of them gathering with the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and likewise the gathering of some of them with others, such as the ease of that in Medina. Or by committing to the statement that those who turned to what was in it of evidence were few. This is as you see.

It is said that the pronouns are for the Christians of Najran who debated with the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) regarding the number of the People of the Cave. The Melkites said the first statement, the Jacobites the second, and the Nestorians the third. This is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), and it is better than the previous statement narrated from some of them. Al-Mawardi said—and Abu Hayyan considered it probable—that the pronouns are for those who disputed in their conversation before their appearance upon them, so He (the Almighty) informed His Prophet (peace be upon him) of what was from the difference of their people regarding their number. It is not hidden that this statement is far from narrating those statements in the future tense with their being followed by His saying (the Almighty) "Say: My Lord is better aware of their number." It has already passed the narration that the people, when they came to the door of the cave with the sent person to buy food, said: "Let me enter to my companions before you," so he entered and the effect of them was obscured to the people. In a narration: every time anyone wanted to enter upon them, they were terrified, so they left and a mosque was built upon them. If it were said on this basis: the pronouns are for those who were bewildered, who differed in their number due to their inability to see them and gather with them, so each group among them said what they said. Perhaps the last group inquired of the youth, so he informed them of that count, and they believed him and took his speech in acceptance. This was supported by what they had of the reports of their ancestors, so they said that out of certainty, and the two previous groups pelted because of the lack of stability of what benefits knowledge for them. Perhaps they were two disbelieving groups. It is not far-fetched after what was transmitted from al-Mawardi, so reflect upon it.

Among the strange things said is: The pronoun in "they say seven" is for Allah (the Exalted) and the plural is for glorification. Their names, according to what is sound from Ibn Abbas, are: Maksalmina, Yamlikha, Martulus, Thabyunus, Dardunus, Kafashititutus, and Mantunwasis, and he is the shepherd, and the dog’s name is Qitmir. It was narrated from Ali (may Allah honor his countenance) that their names were: Yamlikha, Makshliniya, and Mathliniya—these are the companions of the right of the king—and Marnush, Dabarnush, and Shadhnush—these are the companions of his left. He used to consult the six, and the seventh was the shepherd. He did not mention in this narration his name, and mentioned in it that the name of their dog was Qitmir. In the soundness of the attribution of this narration to Ali (may Allah honor his countenance) there is a debate. The scholar al-Suyuti mentioned in the margins of al-Baydawi that al-Tabarani narrated that from Ibn Abbas in his al-Mu'jam al-Awsat with a sound chain. What is in al-Durr al-Manthur is the narration of al-Tabarani in al-Awsat with a sound chain, what we presented from Ibn Abbas, and Allah (the Almighty) knows best.

They were named in some narrations with other than these names. The Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned in Sharh al-Bukhari that in the pronunciation of their names there is much difference, and no trust can be placed in their exact spelling. In al-Bahr, it is that the names of the People of the Cave are foreign and cannot be disciplined by diacritics or dots, and the chain of transmission in knowing them is weak. They mentioned for them properties; al-Naysaburi said from Ibn Abbas: "The names of the People of the Cave are suitable for seeking, escaping, and extinguishing fire—they are written on a piece of cloth and thrown into the middle of the fire. For a child’s crying, they are written and placed under his head in the cradle. For agriculture, they are written on paper and raised on wood planted in the middle of the crops. For the darban (a type of illness), tertian fever, headache, wealth, prestige, and entering upon kings, they are tied on the right thigh. For difficult childbirth, they are tied on the left thigh. For protecting wealth, riding in the sea, and salvation from killing." The end. That is not sound from Ibn Abbas nor from others of the righteous predecessors; perhaps it is something invented by those who dress in the attire of the sheikhs to take money from women and the feeble-minded. I count this among the properties of their names, for it is sound and tested.

It was recited "And the eighth of them is the kalibuhum"—meaning the master of their dog. Some inferred from this reading that they were eight men, and they explained the famous reading as being on the omission of a genitive, meaning "the master of their dog," and it is as you see.

"So do not dispute": The fa is for branching the prohibition upon what preceded it. Dispute (mumarah), according to what al-Raghib said, is arguing in what is of doubt—that is, hesitation. Its origin is from "I milked the she-camel," if you wipe its udder for milking. More than one explained it as argumentation, which is arguing absolutely. That is, if you have stood upon the fact that there is an erroneous one and a correct one among the debaters, do not dispute with them "in them"—that is, in the affair of the youths— "except an apparent dispute"—not deep in it—and that is by limiting oneself to what the clear revelation has touched upon, without declaring all of them ignorant, for there is a correct one among them, even if few. And [without] exposing and scolding the ignorant among them, for that is something that corrupts the noble characters which I was sent to complete. Ibn Zayd said: "The apparent dispute is saying to them: 'It is not as you know.'"

Al-Mawardi narrated that the apparent dispute is what was with an apparent argument. Ibn al-Anbari said: "It is the argumentation of the scholar who is certain of the truth of the report." Ibn Bahr said: "It is what the people witness." Al-Tabrizi said: "The intended meaning of 'apparent' is that which departs with the argument of the opponent. It is said 'it appeared' if it departed." He recited: "And that is a complaint, the shame of which has departed from you"—meaning departed.

"And do not seek a fatwa"—do not request a legal opinion— "in them"—in their affair— "from them"—from the debaters— "anyone." For in what We have given you in a fatwa, there is no need for seeking a fatwa. It is carried upon seeking a fatwa that contradicts noble character, as the situation does not require soothing the thoughts or the like. It is said: The meaning is, do not return to them regarding the affair of the youths and do not believe the third statement from the aspect of its emanating from them, but from the aspect of receiving it from the revelation. It is said: The meaning is, since you have known the ignorance of the owners of the two statements, do not dispute with them in their affair except an apparent dispute, to the extent that the revelation touched upon it by describing them as pelting with the unseen, and do not seek a fatwa in them from those two groups, because you are self-sufficient with what you have been given, despite the fact that they have no knowledge of that. This is contrary to the apparent meaning, as is not hidden.