Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:51

(I did not make them witness) is a resumption intended to state the lack of entitlement of Iblis and his progeny to the [aforementioned] taking [as allies], following the explanation of the factors diverting from that, such as the baseness of their origin, [their] wickedness, and [their] enmity. That is: I did not bring Iblis and his progeny to witness (the creation of the heavens and the earth), seeing as I created both before the creation of them, (nor the creation of themselves), meaning I did not make some of them witness the creation of others, similar to His saying: "And do not kill yourselves." Thus, both pronouns of the plural—the accusative and the genitive—refer to Iblis and his progeny, and they are the ones intended by "the misguiding" in His saying: "And I would not have taken the misguiding as assistants." The placing of that [noun] in the position of their pronoun is a denunciation of them, a recording against them of the act of misguiding, and a confirmation of what preceded regarding the negation of taking them as allies.

The ‘adud (arm/upper arm) in its origin is the part between the elbow and the shoulder, and it is used metaphorically for a helper, like "hand." This is what is intended here. Because it is an indefinite noun in a negative context, it is general; it has been interpreted as both plural and singular according to the ends of the verses. It has also been said: It was not made plural because the entire group is equivalent to a single entity in terms of unfitness for being taken as assistants—meaning: I did not take them as helpers in the matter of creation or in any affair whatsoever, so that their participation in governance might be imagined, let alone the [hypothetical] substitution [of God] which would follow their action based on participation in some of the attributes of Lordship.

Attributing the pronoun in "themselves" to Iblis and his progeny is a position held by everyone who returned the pronoun of "I did not make them witness" to them. The scholar, the Shaykh al-Islam, justified this by saying: "To avoid splitting the pronoun and to preserve the apparent meaning of the word 'themselves.'" Then he said: "You may return the second pronoun to the wrongdoers, accepting the splitting of the pronoun based on the meaning returning to them, for the negation of witnessing the creation of the devils whom they take as allies is the axis upon which the denial of taking them as allies revolves, based on the principle that the least that validates [the act of] taking someone as an ally is the presence of the ally at the creation of the one being taken as an ally. Since there is no such occurrence, there is certainly no justification for taking them as allies. As for making some of the devils witness the creation of others among them, it is not within the scope of the aforementioned denial at all. Moreover, if making some of them witness the creation of others were a validator for taking the 'witness' as an ally—based on it indicating his perfection, considering that he had some entry into the creation of the witnessed—it would actually impair the taking of the 'witnessed' as an ally, based on his inadequacy compared to the one who witnessed his creation. Thus, the negation of the aforementioned witnessing would not be purely for the negation of the perfection that validates taking them as allies for the whole group, which is the basis for the aforementioned denial."

In the verse, there is irony regarding their thoughts, and a sign of the utter flimsiness of their minds and the absurdity of their opinions, as they do not understand this clear matter—which would hardly be confusing even to the dim-witted and children—such that they need it to be explicitly stated. The preference for negating the witnessing [of creation] over the negation of their witnessing [themselves] and the negation of taking them [as allies] is because the peak of what is imagined regarding them is that they might reach that stage by the command of God, the Almighty and Majestic, but that has not happened. This is speech over which the hallmarks of investigation hover.

However, it has been said in response to this: It is permissible for "the heavens and the earth" to be intended as including their inhabitants. Often, this is intended by them, so the disbelievers are included therein. Thus, the verse provides the negation of the devils witnessing their creation—which is the axis of the aforementioned denial—without the need to commit to the splitting of the pronoun, which is contrary to what is immediately understood. This is the apparent meaning of his speech, as well as the speech of many who interpreted the negated witnessing in its literal sense.

It is also permitted that what is intended by it is consultation, metaphorically. This is what the apparent meaning of what is in al-Bahr necessitates. On this account, there is no barrier to intending that the heavens and the earth include their inhabitants. It is as if it were said: I did not consult them in the creation of anyone, neither the disbelievers nor others. So why do these disbelievers take them as allies, when the least that validates taking an ally is that the ally be someone who is consulted in the affairs of the one being taken as an ally or in the affairs of others? The negation of taking them as assistants is absolute in any affair whatsoever, after the negation of consulting them in creation, so that the speech may—apparently—bring about the general negation of their involvement in any way, shape, or form—be it by opinion, bringing into existence, or otherwise—in any of the affairs. Perhaps the verse, in that case, is from one perspective like His saying: "It leaves out neither a small thing nor a great one, but has enumerated it."

It has also been said: The negation of witnessing in the part of the conjunction may be intended to negate consultation, and from this, it follows to negate that they created according to their own will, and from this, it follows to negate that they were created "perfectly"—for it is said "he created as he wished," meaning he created perfectly. The poet said: "You were created absolved of every flaw / As if you were created as you wish."

According to this, there is in [the verse] the witnessing of one's own creation in the sense of being created perfectly. It is not hidden what this contains, and it is sometimes sufficient for this to indicate that the negation of perfection [is achieved] with less effort than this; so understand. The claim that the "perfect ones" witnessed the reality of the creation of themselves—meaning they saw their own creation while they were "fixed essences," i.e., the effusion of external existence which the non-existent is not characterized by—is something I do not see any perfect person proposing or listening to.

The Imam, after recounting the opinion that both pronouns return to the devils, said: "The closest [interpretation] to me is their return to the disbelievers who said to the Messenger (may God bless him and grant him peace): 'If you do not drive these poor people away from your gathering, we will not believe in you.' It is as if the Almighty said: These people who brought this corrupt suggestion and vain stubbornness were not my partners in the governance of the world, evidenced by the fact that I did not make them witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor the creation of themselves, nor did I take them as assistants in the governance of the world and the Hereafter. Rather, they are like the rest of the creation, so why did they dare to make this corrupt suggestion?" An example of this is when someone makes great suggestions to you, and you say to him: "You are not the ruler of the country that we should accept these enormous suggestions from you, so why do you propose them?" What confirms this is that the pronoun must return to the nearest of the mentioned entities, and in the verse, those [intended] are the disbelievers, because they are the ones meant by "the wrongdoers" in His saying: "Wretched is the wrongdoers' exchange."

It is said that the meaning, on the assumption that the two pronouns return to those disbelievers, is: These wrongdoers are ignorant of what the Pen has recorded in pre-eternity regarding states of felicity and their opposite, because they were not witnesses to the creation of the world, so how can they judge their own good state before God the Almighty and their nobility and loftiness before the creation, or [the judgment] of the opposites of these states for the poor?

It is also said: The meaning is that I did not make them witness that, nor did I inform them of the secrets of formation, nor did I distinguish them with characteristics that no one else possesses so that they might be an example for the people to follow, for the people to believe by their faith as they claim. So do not pay attention to their speech, out of greed for their support for the religion, for it is not appropriate for Me to take the misguiding as assistants for My religion. This is supported by the reading of Abu Ja’far, al-Jahdari, al-Hasan, and Shaybah: "And you were not..." with a fat-hah on the ta’, as an address to him (may God bless him and grant him peace). The meaning is: It was not correct for you to take them as assistants. Perhaps the description of those wrongdoers as "the misguiding" is because their intention by driving away the poor was to repel people from him (may God bless him and grant him peace), which is an explicit misguiding. It is said: Every person who is astray is a misguiding person, because misguidance is either by the tongue of speech or the tongue of state, and the latter is not free from any person who is astray.

It is also said: The pronoun refers to the angels, and the meaning is: I did not make them witness that, nor did I seek their help in anything, rather I created them to worship Me, so how could they worship [alongside Me]? This is refuted by "And I would not have taken the misguiding as assistants," unless it is said that it is a negation of taking the devils as assistants, and thus it is understood from both sentences the negation of the validity of the worship of both groups.

Ibn ‘Atiyyah said: The two pronouns refer to the disbelievers and to the people in general. Thus, the verse contains a rebuttal to groups of astrologers, proponents of "natural" philosophies, physicians, and others who delve into such discussions. ‘Abd al-Haqq al-Siqilli followed this, and some jurists mentioned it. What was said just now is said in response to the last part.

The verse is used as evidence that it is not appropriate to seek help from a disbeliever. This is in matters of religion—like the jihad against disbelievers and the fighting of rebels—a position held by some of the Imams, and some of them have detailed rulings on this. As for seeking their help in worldly affairs, what appears to be the case is that there is no harm in it, whether it is in a menial task like clearing latrines, or otherwise, like the construction of pulpits, prayer niches, tailoring, and the like. Perhaps [the statement] "the Jew or the dog has died" in the speech of al-Faruq (may God be pleased with him) was due to the lack of religious matters employed therein, or it is based on choosing a distinction [to be made] in worldly affairs as well.

The Shi’a have narrated that ‘Ali (may God honor his face) said when he was determined to dismiss Mu’awiyah, and Ibn ‘Abbas (may God be pleased with them both) suggested that he keep him in his post until the affair of the Caliphate was consolidated: "What prevents me from that is the saying of God the Almighty: 'And I would not have taken the misguiding as assistants,' so I will never take Mu’awiyah as an assistant." This is a lie that no one believes except one who is astray and misguiding.

Abu Ja’far, Shaybah, al-Sakhtiyani, ‘Awn al-‘Uqayli, and Ibn Miqsam read: < And We did not make them witness > with the nun of majesty. ‘Ali (may God honor his face) read: < Taking the misguiding > as the active participle. Al-Hasan and ‘Ikrimah read ‘adudan with a quiescent dad and transferring its vowel to the ‘ayn. ‘Isa read ‘adudan with a quiescent dad for ease, just as they said in rajul and sabu’—rajul and sabu’ with quiescence; this is a dialect from Tamim. It is also narrated from him that he read it with two fat-hahs.

Shaybah and Abu ‘Amr, in a narration by Harun, Kharijah, al-Khaffaf, and Abu Zayd, read ‘ududan with two dammahs. That is also narrated from al-Hasan. Likewise, it is narrated from him that he read it with two fat-hahs. According to this, it is either a dialectal variant of ‘adud as in al-Bahr—though he did not mention it in the Qamus—or it is the plural of ‘adhid, like khudum is the plural of khadim, from the verb ‘adadahu meaning "he strengthened him and helped him"; in that case, there is no metaphor. Al-Dahhak read ‘ididan with a kasrah on the ‘ayn and a fathah on the dad, and we have not found that among its linguistic forms. Yes, in the Qamus is ‘adhid like katif—which is the opposite of this reading.