Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:6

(So perhaps you are a bakhi’ — meaning a killer — of your soul). In its meaning is what is in Sahih al-Bukhari: "a destroyer of your soul." The former is narrated from Mujahid, al-Suddi, Ibn Jubayr, and Ibn Abbas. Ibn al-Azraq, when asked about this, cited the words of Labid ibn Rabi’ah: "Perhaps you, one day, if you lose the place of her visitation, despite its distance, would one day be a killer of your soul."

In al-Bahr, it is reported from al-Layth: "A man bakha’a his soul," by bak’an and bukhu’an, means he killed it out of intensity of grief. He cited the words of al-Farazdaq: "O you who are killing your soul out of grief for something that decrees have cut off by their own hands." It is also derived from "weakening the earth" through farming, meaning he made it weak due to continuous cultivation, as al-Kisa'i said.

Al-Zamakhshari mentioned that al-bak’ is to reach the al-bakha’ (the vein), which is a vein embedded in the nape of the neck. Ibn al-Athir and others rejected this, stating it is not found in the books of language or anatomy. However, al-Zamakhshari is a trusted authority in this field and possesses wide-ranging knowledge. It has been recited (bakhi’u nafsika) with genitive annexation (idafa), which, according to al-Zamakhshari, is contrary to the original rule for an active participle (ism al-fa'il) if it fulfills the conditions of operation. Sibawayh pointed to this in his Kitab. Al-Kisa'i said that operation and annexation are equal, while Abu Hayyan claimed that annexation is better than operation.

(On their tracks), meaning after them, specifically after they turned away from faith and distanced themselves from it. Ibn Marduyah narrated from Ibn Abbas that Utbah ibn Rabi’ah, Shaybah ibn Rabi’ah, Abu Jahl ibn Hisham, al-Nadr ibn al-Harith, Umayyah ibn Khalaf, al-’As ibn Wa’il, al-Aswad ibn al-Muttalib, and Abu al-Bakhtari, among a group of Quraysh, gathered together. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) felt great weight upon him due to what he saw of his people’s opposition to him and their denial of the guidance he brought, which grieved him intensely. Consequently, Allah Almighty revealed: "(So perhaps you are a bakhi’)..." until the end. From this, it is known that what we have mentioned is more appropriate for the cause of revelation than the view that it means after their death in a state of disbelief.

(If they do not believe in this hadith)—the glorious in status, which is the Qur’an, referred to at the beginning of the Surah as "the Book." Describing it as such, even if one were to concede its implication of createdness, does not harm the Ash'arites and their peers, who say that words are created. "Inna" (if) is conditional, and the sentence following it is the condition, while the response is omitted out of confidence in the evidence of what preceded it, according to the majority. It is also said the response is "So perhaps you..." mentioned previously, which is fronted in wording and deferred in meaning, and the Fa in it is the Fa of the response.

It has been recited (an la yu'minu) with the fatha on the hamza of an on the basis of an implied preposition, i.e., "because," and it is connected to bakhi’ as its cause. Many have claimed that it is not permissible for it to govern as an active participle because its operation is conditioned by it being for the present or future, and it does not operate when it is for the past, whereas the conditional in shifts the past into the future by means of "lam" (did not). This is unlike the infinitive an, which enters the past while it remains past—unless it is taken as a narrative of the past state to bring the scene to mind due to its strangeness. Some of the elite scholars countered this, saying that it is not necessary for that which is the cause of a thing to be past as well; how many future griefs exist for a past affair, whether it continues or not? If it continues, it is more fitting, as it is more agonizing, so there is no need to resort to the narrative of the state. This is addressed in al-Kashf by saying that if al-bak’ is the lack of belief, then if the cause is completed, the effect is necessarily so upon the realization of the effect when the cause is complete. If it is after, it is like the necessity that it cannot be realized without its completion. This was countered by saying it is not accepted, because this is not a true, complete cause for what was mentioned to be necessary; rather, it is a motive and instigator, so its precedence does not matter. It is also said that the hyperbole in his (peace be upon him) grief over their turning away is lost if the bak’ is not immediate, but rather after a period, unlike if it were for narrative. This was also countered by saying it has no basis; rather, the hyperbole is stronger here, for if it issues from him for a past affair, how much more if it continues or renews? Perhaps there is in the verse that which tips the balance toward it remaining in the future. Ponder this.

The accusative of His saying (grieving) is due to bakhi’ as an object for its sake (maf’ul min ajlih). It is also permitted that it be a state (hal) from the pronoun within it, by interpreting it as "being grief-stricken," because the basic principle of a state is derivation. It can also be in the accusative as an infinitive of an implied verb, i.e., "he grieved with a grief."

Al-Asaf, according to what is reported from al-Zajjaj, is exaggeration in grief and anger. Al-Raghib said: Al-asaf is grief and anger together, and it is sometimes used for each of them individually. Its reality is the surging of heart blood out of the desire for revenge. Whenever it is directed toward one lower than him, it spreads and becomes anger; whenever it is toward one higher than him, it contracts and becomes grief. For this reason, Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) was asked about grief and anger, and he said: "Their exit point is the same, but the wording differs. Whoever disputes with one he can overpower, he shows it as rage and anger; and whoever disputes with one he cannot overpower, he shows it as grief and anguish." From this perspective, the poet said: "The grief of every brother of grief is a brother of anger."

Munthir ibn Sa’id held that asaf is more general than grief and anger, and that grief is for one who possesses no power nor is under the hand of the grieving one, while anger is for one in his grasp and power. He interpreted asaf here as grief, contrary to His saying: "And when they angered Us, We took retribution from them." When asaf is used with anger, it is intended as the grief spoken of in His saying: "And when Moses returned to his people, angry and grieving." He made each of them there relative to some of the people. From Qatada, there is an interpretation of asaf here as anger; in another narration, as grief; in Sahih al-Bukhari, its interpretation is as regret; and from Mujahid, its interpretation is as anguish. The people of grief are more numerous.

Perhaps "la’alla" is for hope—meaning the greed for the occurrence or the apprehension of it. Here, it is a metaphor, meaning: you have reached a state where people expect this from you due to the grief observed in you over their lack of belief. Al-Askari said: It is placed here in the position of prohibition, as if it were said: "Do not kill your soul." It is also said to be in the position of a question. Ibn Atiyyah deemed it a denunciation, meaning: "Do not be like that." The saying that la'alla comes for questioning is a Kufan view. What appears is that it is here for apprehension, intended for consolation and urging the abandonment of grief and sorrow. It is possible that this is what al-Askari meant.

In the verse, according to more than one, is a representative metaphor (isti’arah tamthiliyyah). This is because his state (peace be upon him)—in the intensity of his anguish over the people's turning away from belief in the Qur'an and the perfection of his grief for them—is likened to the state of one from whom it is expected that he might destroy his own soul following the loss of what he loves upon the departure of his loved ones, grieving for their departure and lamenting their migration. Then, whatever was said was said, and this is better than considering a singular metaphorical substitution in the components. It is also permitted that it be from the chapter of simile, for mentioning its two sides—the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the bakhi’—in that he (peace be upon him), due to the intensity of his eagerness for the matter, is likened to one who wants to kill his soul for the loss of a matter, and it is as you see.