Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:26

Say, "Allah is most knowing of how long they remained." This is a confirmation that the duration during which He cast sleep upon their ears is exactly this duration. It is as if it were said: "Say, 'Allah is most knowing of how long they remained,' and He has made it known." It is the correct truth, around which no doubt at all hovers. The benefit of delaying the clarification is to alert [the listener] that they also disputed regarding this, just as it was mentioned following their disagreement regarding the number of people. It is also to ensure the concluding remark "Say, 'Allah is most knowing'" mirrors the concluding remark in His saying—the Almighty—"Say, 'My Lord is most knowing of their number.'" It also serves to indicate that this is from the Unseen about which he—peace and blessings be upon him—was informed, so that it might be a miracle for him. Had it been said, "So We cast sleep upon their ears for a number of years," and it were clearly stated first, this indication would not have existed at all. These are several benefits, and the last point is the fundamental one.

There is a need, based on this, to explain the reason for departing from the obvious, which is three hundred and nine years, despite it being greener and more apparent. It has been said that it is an indication that it is three hundred by the calculation of the People of the Book, considering the solar year, and three hundred and nine by the calculation of the Arabs, considering the lunar year; the nine is the amount of the discrepancy. Some have narrated this from Ali—may Allah honor his face.

It has been objected that the indication of the wording to what was mentioned is not apparent, and it does not agree with what the calculators and astronomers hold, as the Imam stated. For the solar year is three hundred and sixty-five days, five hours, and forty-nine minutes according to the Ilkhanid observation, and the lunar year is three hundred and fifty-four days, eight hours, and forty-eight minutes. Thus, the difference between them is ten days, twenty-one hours, and one minute. If this is the difference for one year, the difference for one hundred [years] would be three thousand five hundred and forty-three days, thirteen hours, and four minutes, which is three years, twenty-four days, eleven hours, and sixteen minutes. Thus, the difference for three hundred years is nine years, seventy-three days, nine hours, and forty-eight minutes. Therefore, it was said that this narration from Ali—may Allah honor his face—is not established. Al-Khafaji examined this and said that the way of indication is apparent, because the meaning is: "They remained three hundred years by the calculation of the People of the Book who taught your people the questioning regarding their affair, and nine [years] in addition by the calculation of your people who asked you about that." The departure from the obvious suggests this. The claim that the difference is nine years is based on approximation, because the excess did not reach half a year, nor even a season of its seasons, so it was not taken into account. The fact that the difference is nine [years] approximately holds true for all other opinions regarding the length of the solar and lunar years, since the difference in others barely reaches a quarter, let alone a half.

Al-Tayyibi said regarding the reason for the departure: "It is possible to say: perhaps when they completed three hundred years, they drew close to awakening, then something occurred that caused them to remain asleep for nine years." This has been refuted, as this would imply the meaning: "And they increased in sleep," i.e., their sleep strengthened for nine years, and the weakness in that is not hidden.

He also said: "It is permissible that the People of the Book differed regarding the duration of their stay just as they differed regarding their number, so His saying—the Almighty—'And they remained...' came, lifting the disagreement and clarifying the truth. 'And they increased by nine' is a confirmation and a repulsion of the possibility, similar to the exception in His saying—the Almighty—'And he remained among them a thousand years except fifty years.' And its explanation will come, if Allah the Almighty wills," and it is not devoid of elegance.

It is said that they awoke for a little while, then returned to their first state, which is why the increase was mentioned. This is what is required by what Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from Qatadah, which was mentioned regarding His saying—the Almighty—"And We flip them..." and this, in my view, is closer than what preceded regarding the solar and lunar years.

A group said: The sentence is part of the speech of the People of the Book; it is the response to the preceding "They will say," and what is between them is an interpolation. This is attributed to Ibn Abbas. Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Marduwayh recorded from him—may Allah be pleased with him—that he said: "A man might interpret a verse thinking it is thus, then he falls as far as between the heaven and the earth." Then he recited: "And they remained in their cave," the verse, then said: "How long did the people remain?" They said: "Three hundred and nine years." He said: "If they had remained like that, Allah the Almighty would not have said, 'Say, Allah is most knowing of how long they remained.' But He—the Almighty—narrated the saying of the people, so He said—the Almighty—'They will say three...' up to His saying, 'guessing at the unseen,' so He informed that they do not know. And He said: 'They will say they remained in their cave three hundred years and increased by nine.'" Perhaps this is not authentic from the scholar—may Allah be pleased with him—for it is authenticated from him that the number of the Companions of the Cave was seven, and the eighth was their dog, even though the Almighty followed that saying with His saying—the Almighty—"Say, 'My Lord is most knowing of their number,'" and there is no difference between it and His saying—the Almighty—"Say, 'Allah is most knowing of how long they remained.'" So why did this indicate rejection while that did not?

Yes, Ibn Mas'ud recited, "They said, 'They remained in their cave...'" which necessitates that it be the speech of those who delve into their affair, except that the follow-up with His saying—the Almighty—"Say, 'Allah is most knowing of how long they remained'" is like the follow-up of the third opinion regarding the number, which you heard has no indication of rejection.

It is apparent that the pronoun in "and they increased" in this opinion refers to the Companions of the Cave, just as it does in the previous opinion. Al-Khafaji said: "The pronoun in it refers to the People of the Book, unlike the first [opinion]." In this, the reason for the departure from "three hundred and nine years" becomes apparent, because some of them said, "They remained three hundred," and some of them said, "It is nine more." And the weakness in that is not hidden. According to both opinions, it is apparent that "of how long they remained" is an allusion to the duration previously mentioned. Some claimed that it is an allusion to the duration from the time they were discovered until the time of the Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and this is as you see. It is also said that the Almighty did not say "and they increased by nine" [as a definitive statement], [meaning] the nine was vague, not known whether they were years, months, days, or hours, and the Children of Israel differed regarding that, so he—peace and blessings be upon him—was commanded to return the knowledge to Him—the Mighty and Majestic—regarding the nine only. This is not significant, for if a number that is explained precedes, and that which is not explained is conjoined to it, its explanation is carried over to the previous one. "I have one hundred dirhams and ten" is apparent as "and ten dirhams," and it is not ambiguous, as is not hidden.

Regarding "nine," it is in the accusative case as the object of "they increased," which is one of the verbs that takes one object. Abu al-Baqa said: "Zada" (to add/increase) takes two objects, and when it is built upon the form of ifti'ala (az-dada), it takes one. The apparent meaning of the words of al-Raghib and others is that zada can take one object; it is said: "I increased him such-and-such, so he increased [himself] and he increased by such-and-such," and the logic of that is clear, so do not be heedless.

The majority are of the opinion that "years" in the recitation with the tanwin on "three hundred" is in the accusative case, but they differed in directing that. Abu al-Baqa and Ibn al-Hajib said: It is in the accusative case as a substitution (badal) for "three hundred." Al-Zamakhshari said: It is an explanatory apposition ('atf bayan) for "three hundred," and it was refuted in al-Bahr that this is not permissible according to the school of the Basrans. Some claimed that it is worthier than substitution because substitution entails that the number is not intended. This is supported by what Ibn Abi Shaybah, Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from al-Dahhak, who said: "When this verse, 'And they remained in their cave three hundred,' was revealed, it was said, 'O Messenger of Allah, days, months, or years?' So Allah the Almighty revealed 'years.'" Ibn Atiyyah permitted both ways. It is said: It is in the accusative case as a specifier (tamyiz), but this was refuted because it necessitates irregularity from two aspects (and you will know its reason shortly, if Allah the Almighty wills), and by what was narrated in al-Mufassal from al-Zajjaj that it necessitates that they remained nine hundred years. Ibn al-Hajib said: "The reason is that he understood from their language that the specifier of one hundred is one of the hundred, as when you say 'one hundred men,' a man is one of the hundred. If 'years' were a specifier, it would be one of the three hundred, and the least of the years is three, so it would be as if it were said 'three hundred three years,' thus it would be nine hundred years." This is rejected by saying that what was mentioned is specific to when the specifier is singular. As for when it is plural, the intention is like the intention in the occurrence of the specifier in the plural in examples like "three garments," although the root in all is the plural, and they only departed to the singular for a reason, as explained in its place. So if the specifier is used as a plural, it is used according to the root. What he said only applies if what is used as a plural is used as the singular is used; as for when the plural is used according to its root in what the number is set for, then no.

Al-Khafaji explicitly stated that this is like matching the plural with the plural. Al-Zajjaj permitted "years" to be in the genitive case as an adjective for "hundred," and it returns in meaning to the totality of the number, as in the saying of Antarah: "In it are forty-two milk camels, black as the wing of a dark raven." Where he made "black" an adjective for "milk camel," while it is in meaning an adjective for the totality of the number. Abu Ali said: "It is not impossible that the poet considered 'milk camel' as a plural and made 'black' a description for it. When the intended meaning is the plural, it is not impossible for it to be an interpretation of this type of number since it is in the wording of the singulars, as it is said 'twenty men' and 'thirty tribes'."

Hamzah, al-Kisa'i, Talhah, Yahya, al-A'mash, al-Hasan, Ibn Abi Layla, Khalaf, Ibn Sa'dan, Ibn Isa al-Asbahani, and Ibn Jubayr al-Antaki recited "three hundred years" by genitive annexation of "hundred" to "years." What was narrated from al-Zajjaj is also refuted here, and refuted by what was refuted there. There is no reason to specify the objection to the accusative of "years" as a specifier, for the cause of the necessity—if we concede it—is its being a specifier, and this is realized if the specifier of one hundred is genitive by annexation. One of the two famous things in its usage is it being singular, and because singularity is famous in usage, it was called the root. This is the root according to usage, and this does not conflict with the statement of Ibn al-Hajib: "The root in the specifier absolutely is the plural, as you heard just now," because he meant that it is the root rejected by analogy, considering that one hundred is a plural like three, four, and their likes. This is in al-Kashf. It may depart from the famous usage, so it comes singular and accusative, as in his saying: "If a youth lives two hundred years, he has neglected delight and youth." It may also come as a plural and genitive by annexation, as in the verse according to the recitation of al-Kisa'i, Hamzah, and those with them. But they said: "The plural mentioned in it has been treated as if it were devoid of the sign of the plural, because the sign in it is not purely for plurality, as it is like a substitute for the lam of its singular that was deleted, to the extent that a people do not inflect it with letters but treat it like hine (time)." I have not found in what I have of the books of the Arabic language a witness from the speech of the Arabs for the annexation of "hundred" to a plural. Most grammarians want the verse according to the recitation of Hamzah and al-Kisa'i as a witness for that, and the speech of Allah the Almighty is a sufficient witness. Ubayy recited "three hundred years" with annexation and singularity as is the common usage, and likewise in the mus-haf of Ibn Mas'ud. Al-Dahhak recited "three hundred years" with tanwin and the nominative "years" as a predicate of a deleted subject, meaning "they are years." Al-Hasan and Abu Amr, in the narration of al-Lu'lu'i from him, recited "nine" with the fat-ha on the ta, which is a dialect for it, so know [that], and Allah the Almighty knows best.

"To Him belongs the unseen of the heavens and the earth"—meaning all that is hidden in them and concealed of the conditions of their inhabitants. "Unseen" is a noun in the meaning of the absent and hidden; its form was made [like this] for intensification, and the lam [in lillahi] is for cognitive appropriation, meaning to Him—the Almighty—belongs that in terms of knowledge. It follows from this the confirmation of His knowledge—the Almighty—of all created beings, for from the knowledge of the hidden, one knows the other by the path of priority.

"How clearly He sees and hears!" These are two forms of exclamation, and the pronoun [in bihi] is His pronoun—the Almighty. The speech is included under the "Say," so the exclamation is not from Him—the Almighty—such that it would be said that the intended meaning is not its reality due to its impossibility for Him—the Almighty; rather, the meaning is that this is a momentous affair whose nature is to be exclaimed at, as it has been said. It is not impossible for exclamation to be issued regarding some of His attributes—the Almighty—and His actions—the Mighty and Majestic—in reality from other than Him—the Almighty. In the Hadith [there is the saying]: "How forbearing You are toward those who disobey You, how close You are to those who call upon You, and how compassionate You are to those who ask You." They have a long discussion on this issue, so let whoever desires it return to it, and Ibn Hisham has a treatise on that. In any case, there is an indication in it that the nature of His sight—the Almighty—and His hearing—the Mighty and Majestic—and they are two attributes that do not return to the attribute of knowledge, are outside of what the sight of seers and the hearing of hearers are upon. For the subtle, the dense, the small, the large, the clear, the hidden, the secret, and the public are all the same in [the state of] not being hidden from His sight and His hearing—the Almighty. Rather, some people said: "The non-existent and the existent are equal in that," and it is based on the thingness of the non-existent, and the disagreement in that is known. Perhaps the presentation of what indicates the greatness of the affair of His sight—the Mighty and Majestic—is because what we are concerned with is of the category of visible things. The origin is "more seeing and more hearing," and the hamza is for transformation, not for transitivity, meaning "He became possessing sight and became possessing hearing," and this does not necessitate their non-realization for Him—the Almighty—He is far exalted above that. In them is an implicit pronoun returning to Him—the Almighty—then they were transformed into the form of a command, and the pronoun [that is] the agent was brought out because the form of the command is not fitting to bear the pronoun of the absent, and it was marked with the extraneous ba, so it had two locations: the genitive because of the ba, and the nominative because it is an agent. Because it became an adjunct in form, it was given its ruling, so it was correct to delete it from the second sentence despite it being an agent, and the agent is not allowed to be deleted according to them. This ba is hardly deleted in this position unless the object of exclamation is what it is connected to, like ahsana an taqula (how good it is that you say). Since this verb is past in meaning, it was said it is built upon a latent fat-ha whose appearance was prevented by its coming in the form of a command. This is the school of Sibawayh in this construction. Al-Radi said: "This is weakened by [the fact that] the command in the meaning of the past is something not known, but the past has come in the meaning of the command, as in the Hadith: 'Let a man fear Allah and do good, he will be rewarded for it,' and by [the fact that] 'becoming possessing such-and-such' is rare. If what was mentioned were from it, it would be permissible to say 'make him fleshy with Zayd' and 'make him fat with Zayd,' and by [the fact that] the addition of the ba in the agent is rare, and the consistent [usage] is its addition in the object." This was refuted by [the fact that] the command being in the meaning of the past not being known is not conceded. Do you not see that "suffice with it" is in the meaning of "let me suffice with it" according to al-Zajjaj? It was intended by this transmission to indicate that a creative meaning was intended by it, which is exclamation, and it was not intended by the past because creation is more suitable for the form of the command than it is for it, as it is a report in the majority. And by [the fact that] the frequency of af'ala in the meaning of "becoming possessing such-and-such" is not hidden from the researcher. The permissibility of alhim bi-Zayd (make him fleshy with Zayd) in the meaning of exclamation is necessary and there is no harm in it, and in another meaning it is not necessary. Yes, what was mentioned about the rarity of adding the ba in the agent is something there is no discussion about. The fairness is that the school of Sibawayh in this issue is not devoid of forcing. The school of al-Akhfash—and al-Radi attributed it to al-Farra—is that af'al in such a construction is a command in wording and meaning. If you say "be good to Zayd," you have commanded everyone to make Zayd good. The meaning of making him such is describing him with it, so it is as if you said, "Describe him with goodness however you wish," for there is in him everything that can possibly be in a person, as the poet said: "I have found the place of speech to be vast, so if you find a speaking tongue, then speak." This meaning is suitable for exclamation, unlike the estimation of Sibawayh. Furthermore, the hamza of making [something happen] is more frequent than the hamza of "becoming possessing such-and-such," even if neither of them is based on what al-Radi said as a consistent analogy. He considered the agent a pronoun for a commanded one, which is everyone, because the meaning is that due to the prominence of the affair, everyone is commanded—not by designation—to describe him with what was mentioned. The af'ala form was not inflected according to this school, so it is not ascribed to a dual, a plural, or a feminine, because of what they mentioned as the reason for the verb of exclamation being uninflected: its resemblance to particles in creation, and each of its words having become a proper name for one of the meanings. Even if there is a sentence there, the analogy is that it should not be inflected as a precaution to achieve understanding, like proper names. That is why ni'ma (how good) and bi'sa (how bad) were not inflected in proverbs, and this was eased here by the erasure of the meaning of the command in it, like the one who erased the meaning of "making" and it became for the mere creation of exclamation, and the meaning of address did not remain in it, and the ba is extraneous in the object. Al-Zajjaj permitted the hamza to be for transformation, so the ba is for transitivity, meaning "He made him possessing goodness." Then he apologized for the remaining of "becoming good" in all conditions in one form because the address is to the infinitive of the verb, i.e., "O goodness, become good with Zayd," and there is forcing and awkwardness in that.

We also say, "Become good with Zayd, O Amr," and nothing is addressed in a condition unless one says: "The meaning of addressing goodness has been erased." The fruit of the disagreement between Sibawayh and others appears when it is forced to delete the ba; according to the school of Sibawayh, the nominative case of its genitive is necessary, and according to the other, its accusative case is necessary. This is [the conclusion]. Ibn Atiyyah said: "It is possible that the meaning of the verse is: 'See with the religion of Allah the Almighty and hear with it,' meaning see with the guidance of Allah and hear with it." So the pronoun returns either to the guidance or to the Majestic Name, and this was narrated from Ibn al-Anbari, and it is not significant. Isa recited "he saw" and "he heard" in the form of the past in both of them. Abu Hayyan interpreted this as the intended meaning being information, not exclamation, and the genitive pronoun for Allah the Almighty, meaning "He made His servants see by knowing Him—the Almighty—and He made them hear." He permitted that "see" be an elative (af'al tafdil), and likewise "hear," and it is in the accusative case as a circumstantial qualifier (hal) from the pronoun of "to Him," and the pronoun in "with it" returns to the Unseen, and the reality of elation is not intended, but rather the greatness of the affair of His sight—the Almighty—and His hearing—the Mighty and Majestic. Perhaps this is closer than what Abu Hayyan mentioned, and the summary of the meaning according to it is that He—the Almighty—knows the Unseen of the heavens and the earth, being seeing of it and hearing in the most complete and greatest way.

"They have," i.e., the inhabitants of the heavens and the earth, indicated by their mention, "from other than Him,"—the Almighty—"no protector," i.e., no one to manage their affairs, "nor does He share in His judgment,"—in His decree—the Almighty—"anyone." Be he who he may, and he does not make anyone have an inlet into it. It is said it is possible that the pronoun returns to the Companions of the Cave, and the annexation of "judgment" is for the context, in the meaning of "they have no one to manage their affair and protect them other than Him—the Almighty—and He does not share in His judgment which appeared in them anyone from the creation." Ibn Atiyyah permitted that it returns to the contemporaries of the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—from the disbelievers who were adversarial to him—peace and blessings be upon him—and made the verse an interpolation with a threat. It is said: It is possible that it returns to the meaning of the believers of the inhabitants of the heavens and the earth, and the intent is that they will not take from other than Him—the Almighty—a protector. It is said: It returns to those who differed regarding the duration of the stay of the Companions of the Cave, meaning no one manages their affair other than Allah the Almighty; so they are not able [to know] without His enabling—the Almighty—so how could they know without His informing—the Mighty and Majestic? All are as you see. Furthermore, it is not hidden from you that what is in the noble arrangement is more eloquent in negating a partner than if it were said "no protector and no partner."

Mujahid recited "nor does He share" with a ya at the end of the letters and the jazm (jussive). Ya'qub said: "I do not know the reason for that." Some explained it as it being silent with the intention of stopping. Ibn Amir, al-Hasan, Abu Raja, Qatadah, al-Jahdari, Abu Haywah, Zayd, Humayd ibn al-Wazir from Ya'qub, al-Ju'fi, and al-Lu'lu'i from Abu Bakr recited "nor do you share" with the ta as the third of the letters and the jazm as a prohibition to everyone against associating partners, not a prohibition to him—peace and blessings be upon him. Even if it were made for him—peace and blessings be upon him—it would be made as an allusion to others, like his saying: "I mean you, but listen, O neighbor!" So its result would be that [meaning]. It is permitted that the address be to him—peace and blessings be upon him—and it is made conjoined to "do not say," and the meaning is: "Do not ask anyone about what you do not know from the story of the Companions of the Cave and their stay, and limit yourself to what comes to you in that from the revelation," or "do not ask anyone about what Allah the Almighty informed you of from the news of the duration of their stay, and limit yourself to His clarification—the Almighty." It is not hidden what is in it of much opposition to the obvious, even if it is more suitable to His saying—the Almighty—[...]