Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:83

The question was posed by way of a test, and those who asked—according to the well-known report—were the Quraysh, prompted by the Jews. It is also said that they were the Jews themselves, as narrated from al-Suddi. Most reports indicate that the verse was revealed after their questioning; the use of the future tense (yas’alunaka - "they ask you") serves to visualize the past event, as there was a sense of strangeness in their asking while witnessing what they witnessed of his (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) affairs. It is also said that it denotes their persistence in questioning until the answer was delivered.

Some reports suggest the verse was revealed beforehand. `Uqbah ibn ‘Amir reported: "A group of the People of the Book came with scrolls or books and said to me, 'Ask permission for us to enter upon the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).' I went to him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and informed him of their presence. He (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: 'What have I to do with them? They ask me about what I do not know. I am but a servant; I have no knowledge except what my Lord has taught me.' Then he said: 'Bring me water for ablution.' I brought it, he performed ablution, then stood in a place of prayer in his house and prayed two rak'ahs. He finished with a look of joy upon his face and then said: 'Go, bring them in, and bring in any of my companions you find at the door.' When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saw them, he said: 'If you wish, I shall tell you what you asked me about, or if you wish, do otherwise.' The majority favor the first [that it was after the questioning], and the authenticity of this report is not established."

Regarding Dhu al-Qarnayn, it is said that he was a king whom Allah, the Exalted, brought down to the earth and to whom He gave a means to all things. This is narrated from Jubayr ibn Nufayr. Evidence for this is provided by what Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn al-Anbari in Kitab al-Addad, and Abu al-Shaykh reported from ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him): he heard a man calling out in Mina, "O Dhu al-Qarnayn!" ‘Umar said to him, "You have named yourselves with the names of the prophets; what do you have to do with the names of the angels?" This is a strange view, and it is hardly authentic; even if the report were authentic, it is not an explicit text for that, as it is possible—though remotely—that the intent was that this name is among the names of the angels (peace be upon them), so you should not name yourselves with it, even if some of those before you were named with it.

It is also said that he was a righteous servant whom Allah, the Exalted, made king of the earth, gave knowledge and wisdom, and clothed in majesty. We do not know who he is. Regarding his naming as "Dhu al-Qarnayn" (the possessor of two horns), several views are mentioned:

1. He called people to the obedience of Allah, and he was struck on his right "horn" (side of his head) and died. Then Allah resurrected him, he called [to the faith] again, and he was struck on his left "horn" and died. Then Allah resurrected him, he was named Dhu al-Qarnayn, and he ruled over what he ruled. This is narrated from ‘Ali (may Allah be honored be upon him).
2. Two generations (qarnan) of people died during his time.
3. The two sides of his head were made of copper; this is narrated from Wahb ibn Munabbih.
4. He had two "horns" on his head like locks of hair, and he was the first to wear a turban to hide them; this is narrated from ‘Ubayd ibn Ya‘la.
5. His crown had two horns.
6. He circled the world—that is, its east and its west—and this is narrated as a marfu’ (elevated) report.
7. He had two braided locks of hair; this is narrated from Qatadah and Yunus ibn ‘Ubayd.
8. Light and darkness were subjected to him; when he traveled, light would guide him from his front, and darkness would extend from his rear.
9. He entered the light and the darkness.
10. He saw in his dream that he ascended to the sun and grasped its two horns.
11. It is possible that he was nicknamed such for his courage, as if he were goring his peers (aqran), just as Ardashir Bahman was nicknamed "the long-handed" due to the reach of his authority wherever he desired.

It is not hidden that it is unlikely for a man not to be known who was empowered as he was on earth and reached such fame in its length and breadth. As for the views mentioned regarding the reason for his naming, some are hardly sound, and this is likely not hidden from you.

It is said that he is Fereydun ibn Athfiyan ibn Jamshid, the fifth king of the Persian Pishdadian dynasty. He was a just king, obedient to Allah, the Exalted. In the book Suwar al-Aqalim by Abu Zayd al-Balkhi, it is stated that he was supported by revelation. In general history, it is stated that he ruled the earth and divided it among his three sons: Iraj, Salm, and Tur. He gave Iraj Iraq, India, and the Hijaz, and made him the holder of the crown; he gave Salm Rome, the lands of Egypt, and the Maghrib; and he gave Tur China, the Turks, and the East. He set a law for each by which they would rule. The three laws were called "Siyasah," which is an Arabized form of si-isa, meaning "three laws." The reason for his being called Dhu al-Qarnayn is that he ruled the two ends of the world, or because of the length of his reign—which was, according to Rawdat al-Safa, five hundred years or more—or his courage and conquest of kings. This is refuted by the fact that historians have agreed that he did not travel east or west; rather, the lands were conquered for him by Kaveh the blacksmith of Isfahan, who remained the head of the armies until he died. It would also follow from this view that al-Khidr (peace be upon him) was in his vanguard, based on the fame that he (peace be upon him) was in the vanguard of Dhu al-Qarnayn, yet no historian has mentioned this. It has been answered that those who say he is Alexander confirm everything established for Alexander in the verses and reports and do not care about the lack of mention by historians—and this is as you can see.

It is said that he is Alexander the Greek, son of Philip (Filiqus), or Qalafis, or Qulis. Ibn Kathir said: He is the son of Philis, son of Musrim, son of Hermes, son of Mitun, son of Rumi, son of Liti, son of Yunan, son of Japheth, son of Nuh, son of Sarkhun, son of Tunut, son of Yufil, son of Rumi the Younger, son of ‘Uzair, son of Ishaq, son of Ibrahim the Friend (peace be upon him). The throne of his kingdom was Macedonia, a city in the lands of Rome, west of the noble seat of the sultanate, protected Constantinople; the distance between them is about fifteen days or so, near the city of Shiraz. Ibn Zaydun said: It is Misr (Egypt), and he is the one who defeated Darius the Younger and seized the kingdom of the Persians. His birth was in the thirteenth year of the reign of Darius the Elder. Some claim that Darius was his father, claiming that he married Philip's daughter, and when he brought her near, he found a foul odor from her, so he sent her back to her father. She was already pregnant with Alexander, and when she gave birth, he was placed under the guardianship of her father and attributed to him. It is said that Darius the Elder married the daughter of the King of Zanj, Halabi, found her smell repugnant, and ordered that a ruse be used for it; she would bathe in water of sandarus (sandalwood), which removed much of her stench, then he grew weary of her and returned her to her family, and she gave birth to Alexander, who was called Alexandros. What indicates that he was his son is that when he caught up to Darius the Younger, son of Darius the Elder, who was on the verge of death, he placed his head in his lap and said to him: "O my brother, tell me who did this to you so that I may take revenge for you." This is a false claim, and his saying "O my brother" was out of honor and addressing an equal. He was called Dhu al-Qarnayn because of his ruling the two ends of the earth, or for his courage.

Evidence for this view is that the Quran indicates that this man's kingdom reached the furthest West, the furthest East, and the direction of the North, which is the entirety of the inhabited earth. This king must have had his memory immortalized, and the king who became famous in history books for his kingdom reaching this limit is none other than this Alexander. This is because when his father died, he gathered the kings of Rome and the Maghrib, conquered them, and reached the Green Sea. Then he returned to Egypt, built Alexandria, entered the Levant, targeted the Children of Israel, came to the Sacred House (Jerusalem), and slaughtered in its sanctuary. Then he turned to Armenia and the Gate of Gates (Bab al-Abwab). The Iraqis, Copts, and Berbers submitted to him. He seized Darius, targeted India and China, campaigned against distant nations, returned to Khurasan, built famous cities, returned to Iraq, fell ill in Shahrzur, and died there. It is also said he died in Rumiya of the Cities (Mada'in) and was placed in a gold coffin and carried to Alexandria. He lived thirty-two years, and the duration of his reign was twelve years. Others say he lived thirty-six years and his reign was sixteen years, and others say otherwise. Since it is established in the Quran that Dhu al-Qarnayn ruled most of the inhabited earth, and it is established by history that the one with this status is Alexander, it is certain that the one meant by Dhu al-Qarnayn is Alexander.

This is what the Imam (Razi) mentioned, then he said: "This view is the most apparent due to the aforementioned evidence, except that there is a strong problem: he was a student of Aristotle the Sage, who resided in the city of Athens. His father handed him over to him, so he stayed with him for five years, learned philosophy from him, excelled in it, and was upon his school of thought. Therefore, Allah’s honoring him necessitates the judgment that Aristotle's school is the truth, which is a path that cannot be taken."

It was answered that we do not concede that he was upon his school of thought in everything he held. Being a student of a person does not necessitate agreement in all of that person’s doctrines. Do you not see the frequent disagreement of the two Imams (Abu Yusuf and Muhammad) with their teacher, Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him)? It is possible that he differed from him in matters that necessitate disbelief. His slaughtering in the sanctuary of the Sacred House is evidence that he did not hold all the views held by the sages. It is not hidden that this is a remote possibility; the well-known view is that he was a proponent of what the sages said, and the aforementioned slaughtering is not confirmed, and relying upon it is weak.

It is also said that his holding those views and his studentship under Aristotle do not necessitate his disbelief, for he was an acknowledger of the Creator—may His status be exalted—and held Him in high esteem, not worshipping other than Him in terms of idols or otherwise, as indicated by what al-Shahrastani reported: that the sages consulted about prostrating to him to show reverence and honor, and he said: "It is not permissible to prostrate to anyone other than the Originator of All." He was not sent a messenger, for he was about three hundred years before the mission of ‘Isa (peace be upon him), and the prophets (peace upon them) at that time were from the Children of Israel and sent to them, and he was not among them, so he was under the judgment of the "People of the Interval" (Ahl al-Fatrah).

This is countered by the fact that even if we concede that, it does not resolve the essence of the problem, because Allah, the Exalted, would hardly bestow such honor—which the verses and reports indicate—upon someone who has the status of the "People of the Interval." Furthermore, it is stated in history that the mentioned Alexander treated Aristotle as a minister, consulted him in important affairs, and acted according to his opinion, and it is not mentioned therein that he met al-Khidr (peace be upon him), let alone took him as a minister, as is the well-known report regarding Dhu al-Qarnayn.

It is also objected that Alexander the mentioned did not have a confirmed journey toward the Maghrib in reliable history books; Katib Chelebi—may he be shown mercy—noted this. It is said that he is Alexander the Roman, who precedes the Greek one by a long time; he is called "Dhu al-Qarnayn the Elder." His name is said to be Marzban ibn Mardaba, of the descendants of Japheth ibn Nuh (peace be upon him), and he was black. It is also said his name was ‘Abdullah ibn al-Dahhak. It is also said he was Mus‘ab ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Qaynan ibn Mansur... (to the end of the lineage of Qahlan). Some made this disagreement over the name of Dhu al-Qarnayn regarding the Greek one, after reporting the view that his name was Alexander ibn Philip, and mentioned regarding the Roman one his name and lineage as previously quoted from Ibn Kathir.

Some researchers hold that "Alexander the Greek" and "Alexander the Roman" both refer to the one who defeated Darius the Younger. The calendar known as the Roman calendar, also called the Syriac and Persian calendar, is commonly attributed to him. Its beginning, according to Ibn al-Banna, is the sunrise of Monday of the first year of his reign, or from the beginning of the seventh year, which is the year he set out to conquer lands, as in the Zij (astronomical table) of al-Sufi, or from the beginning of the year in which he died, as in Al-Mabadi' wa al-Ghayat. Some researchers attribute it to Solon ibn al-Tabukhus, who ordered the building of Antioch, which is what Ibn Abi al-Shukr validated. Some, such as Ulugh Beg, withheld from attributing it to either due to the conflict of evidence. Some denied that there were two Alexanders among the kings of the ancient era, and claimed there was only the Alexander who defeated Darius and seized the kingdom of Persia. He said: "It is possible that the Dhu al-Qarnayn mentioned in the Glorious Quran is he, and it is possible that he is another."

The view held by many is that those named Alexander among the ancient kings were two, with about two thousand years between them, and the first of them is the one intended by Dhu al-Qarnayn. Some call him the Roman, some call him the Greek, and he is the one who lived for a long time; it is said he lived 1,600 years, or 2,000 years, or 3,000 years. Nothing of that is authentic. Abu Rayhan al-Biruni the astronomer mentioned in his book titled Al-Athar al-Baqiyah ‘an al-Qurun al-Khaliyah that Dhu al-Qarnayn is Abu Karb, Sumay ibn ‘Umayr ibn Afriqis al-Himyari. He is the one the Yemeni Tubba‘ boasted of when he said: "Dhu al-Qarnayn was my grandfather, a Muslim king who was exalted on earth, not erratic; he reached the Wests and the Easts, seeking the means of a kingdom from a wise guide. He saw the setting of the sun at its setting in a spring of dark mud and swampy earth." He then said: "It seems that this view is closer, because the 'Dhu' rulers were from Yemen, like Dhu al-Manar, Dhu Nuwas, Dhu Ru‘ayn, Dhu Yazan, and Dhu Jadan." Katib Chelebi chose this view and mentioned that he was in the era of Ibrahim (peace be upon him), that he met him in Makkah, and they embraced. The fame of Alexander the Greek—the student of Aristotle—reaching the furthest limit in history books, as the Imam mentioned, unlike this one, is only due to the proximity of the Greek’s time relative to him, for there is about two thousand years between them, and the histories of those eras have been struck by a whirlwind, and nothing remains to be relied upon or to return to for the resolution of problems.

It may be said: the lack of fame for the one mentioned strengthens the fact that he is the one asked about, for the purpose of the Jews’ question was to test, and that is only appropriate for one whose affair is hidden and not famous; for fame—especially when complete—is a subject of knowledge. Several have gone to the view that Dhu al-Qarnayn was in the time of Ibrahim (peace be upon him). Al-Azraqi mentioned that he embraced Islam at his (peace be upon him) hands and circled the Ka'bah with him, and the third of them was Isma‘il (peace be upon him). It is narrated that he performed Hajj walking, and when Ibrahim (peace be upon him) heard of his coming, he met him, prayed for him, and gave him counsel. It is said he was brought a horse to ride, and he said, "I will not ride in a land where the Friend (al-Khalil) is." Upon that, the clouds were subjected to him, the means were extended for him, and Ibrahim (peace be upon him) gave him glad tidings of that. The cloud would carry him, his armies, and all their equipment when they wished to wage war on a people. They did not explicitly state that this Dhu al-Qarnayn is the Himyari who was mentioned, but the implication of Katib Chelebi's words is that he is the one.

He mentioned that it is possible that "Alexander" was a title for the one mentioned, Arabized from Alexandros, and its meaning in the Greek language is "good human." It may be said that whoever said the name of Alexander is Mus‘ab ibn ‘Abdullah... (ending in Qahtan) meant this Himyari man, not the Roman nor the Greek, but the narrator was mistaken, because no one has said that the Romans are from the descendants of Qahtan, nor the Greeks. Indeed, Ya‘qub ibn Ishaq al-Kindi mentioned that Yunan (Greece) is the brother of Qahtan, and Abu al-Abbas al-Nashi refuted him in his poem: "O Abu Yusuf, I have looked and have not found, upon examination, an opinion sounder than yours nor a pact... You compare heresy to the religion of Muhammad? You have brought a monstrous thing, O brother of Kinda... and you mix Yunan with Qahtan in error; by my life, you have made them very far apart."

It is mentioned in history books that the kings of Yemen—until the Abyssinians defeated them—were from the descendants of Qahtan. This view regarding Dhu al-Qarnayn is objected to by the fact that the name "Sumay ibn ‘Umayr ibn Afriqis" is not found in the reliable history books among the kings of Yemen. What is mentioned is "Shammar" (in the form of the past verb, from "tashmir," meaning hastening) ibn Afriqis; they did not mention "‘Umayr" between him and Afriqis. Some mentioned that he is Dhu al-Qarnayn and said: he is called "Shammar Yar‘ash" due to a trembling (ir‘ash) he had; perhaps "Sumay" is a corruption of "Shammar" and "Ibn ‘Umayr" is a corruption of "Yar‘ash." They mentioned regarding his father, Afriqis, that he campaigned toward the West in the land of the Berbers until he reached Tangier, and moved the Berbers from the lands of Palestine, Egypt, and the coast to their current dwellings, and that he is the one who built "Afriqiyah," and it was named after him. His reign was 164 years. He also set out toward Iraq and headed toward China and uprooted the city known today as Samarkand. They said it is an Arabization of Shammar-Kand.

It is said that he was nicknamed Dhu al-Qarnayn because of two braids of hair he had, and his reign—according to Ibn Qutaybah—was 137 years, according to al-Mas‘udi 53 years, and according to others 87 years. Then, this one was not Abu Karb; rather, the one nicknamed by this, according to what we have seen in some history books, is As‘ad ibn Kalikarib, and he is called "the middle Tubba‘." It is mentioned that he believed in our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) before his mission, and about that he says: "I bore witness for Ahmad that he is a Messenger from Allah, the Creator of souls. If my life were extended to his, I would have been his minister and cousin." It is mentioned that he was severe in his grip and carried out many campaigns, so his people grew tired of him and instigated his son Hassan to kill him, and he killed him.

It is not hidden that neither of these two persons can be the Dhu al-Qarnayn who is mentioned to have met Ibrahim (peace be upon him). As for the first, because they mentioned that he ruled after Yasir Yan‘am ibn ‘Amr, and Yasir ruled after Bilqis, the wife of Sulayman (peace be upon him), and he was her uncle. How can it be imagined that this is that one, given the long time between Ibrahim and Sulayman (peace be upon them)? As for the second, he is much later, and no one has applied "Dhu al-Qarnayn" to him, nor attributed to him campaigns in the Easts and Wests. I saw in some books that in the time of Manuchihr ibn Iraj ibn Afridun, Musa (peace be upon him) was sent, and the king of Yemen in his time was Shammar, the Father of Kings, and he was under his obedience. Consequently, it is impossible for this Shammar to be the aforementioned Dhu al-Qarnayn, and this is apparent.

If you drop all these statements from consideration—based on the claim that the reports of the kings of Yemen are chaotic and no two consistent accounts can be found—and consider the view that he was a king from among them in the time of Ibrahim (peace be upon him), the matter becomes difficult from another aspect: all history books state that Afridun was in the time of Ibrahim (peace be upon him) and that he divided the inhabited world among his three sons. How can it be consistent with this view that Dhu al-Qarnayn was a man from the kings of Yemen who was in that time as well? A similar problem arises if we say Dhu al-Qarnayn is one of the two Alexanders (the Greek or the Roman) and say he was also in the time of Ibrahim (peace be upon him). The conclusion is that the view that Afridun was in that time and was the possessor of the inhabited world—as in general Persian histories—prevents the claim that Dhu al-Qarnayn in that time was someone else. Indeed, the claim that any of the three (Afridun, the Tubba‘ Dhu al-Qarnayn, or one of the Alexanders) existed in that time and ruled the earth prevents the claim that another among them existed and ruled the earth as well. It is also problematic that Dhu al-Qarnayn, whoever he may be, existed in the time of Ibrahim (peace be upon him), because Nimrod was also in his time. It has been said that the kings of the world were two believers and two disbelievers: the two believers were Sulayman (peace be upon him) and Dhu al-Qarnayn, and the two disbelievers were Nimrod and Nebuchadnezzar. There is no escape from this, assuming the report is authentic, except by saying that the time of Ibrahim (peace be upon him) was extended and their rule of the world occurred successively—and this is as you can see.

I saw in some books the claim that Dhu al-Qarnayn ruled after Nimrod, and the problem is resolved by this. Some said: what the history books require is that the report is not authentic or requires interpretation, for none of them contain the generality of the kingdom of Sulayman, Nimrod, or Nebuchadnezzar. The apparent fact is the lack of authenticity. It is also problematic that he was in that time because he was not mentioned in the Torah, as the Jews today claim. That is highly unlikely if he existed; thus, the lack of mention indicates he did not exist. This was answered by saying we do not concede he was not mentioned. Ibn Abi Hatim reported from al-Suddi that the Jews said to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "O Muhammad, you only mention Ibrahim, Musa, ‘Isa, and the prophets because you heard their mention from us. Tell us about a prophet whom Allah, the Exalted, did not mention in the Torah except in one place." He said: "Who is he?" They said: "Dhu al-Qarnayn." The report, rather the appearance of their question, indicates that he has a mention in their book, and their denial today is not to be heeded. Moreover, the mentioned problem is merely a matter of finding it unlikely, and it is not hidden that it is not a strong barrier.

In sum, not one of the statements regarding the affair of Dhu al-Qarnayn is free from "it is said" and "they said." It is as if, after you have reviewed the statements and the arguments for and against them, you would choose that he is Alexander ibn Philip, the one who defeated Darius, and claim that he is called "the Greek" just as he is called "the Roman," and that he was a believer in Allah, the Exalted, and did not commit a disbelieving act of creed, word, or deed. You say that his studentship under Aristotle does not prevent this; for Musa, whom Jibril raised, is a believer, and Musa, whom Pharaoh raised, is a messenger. The Ash‘ari was a student of the Mu‘tazilah, and the head of the Mu‘tazilah was a student of al-Hasan. Aristotle disagreed with Plato in most issues, yet he was his student. The claim that Aristotle was like a minister to him, that he consulted him in important affairs, and acted according to his opinion, does not indicate his following him in all his beliefs. That—if we assume it to be proven—is in kingly affairs, not creedal issues. Moreover, Mulla Sadra al-Shirazi mentioned that Aristotle was a sage, a worshipper, a monotheist, and a proponent of the creation of the world and its cessation—referred to by the words of Allah, the Exalted: "the day We will fold the heaven like the folding of a scroll for the records." What spread about him regarding the matter of the world is a delusion arising from not understanding his words, and the rest of the pillars of the sages are similar.

We do not concede that he did not travel toward the West, nor that it is proven that al-Khidr was the minister of Dhu al-Qarnayn, even if it is famous, so that his lack of being a minister would impugn his being Dhu al-Qarnayn. It is said he was a minister to a king who was also called Dhu al-Qarnayn, but he is someone else, and there was a confusion in that. It is also said that it is possible that he (peace be upon him) was among the sages who were with him and was like a minister to him; the fact that he consulted others in some affairs does not impugn that. He was famous at that time for wisdom, not prophecy; in ancient eras, they used to call a prophet a "sage." Perhaps he was also famous by another name, and the fact that historians did not touch upon any of that does not indicate its non-existence. It is also said we do not concede they did not touch upon it; rather, their saying that al-Khidr was the minister of Dhu al-Qarnayn is a statement that he was the minister of the aforementioned Alexander, in the view of those who say he is Dhu al-Qarnayn. This does not prevent al-Khidr from being—according to the most correct view—a prophet while Alexander is not, as will come later, if Allah wills, regarding the opinion of the majority. The intent of his being a minister is the management of his affairs and aiding him. There is no harm in a prophet aiding and managing the affairs of a righteous king who is not a prophet; this occurred among the Children of Israel.

If you do not choose what has been mentioned, and you choose that he is one of the kings of Yemen or another Alexander, you are bound to either say he was not in the time of Ibrahim (peace be upon him), or that he was in his time—after Nimrod or with him, but under his authority—and that Afridun was not there at that time. You are also bound to turn your back on history books, just as you would have to do in the most complete way if you chose that he is Afridun.

The closest thing, in my opinion, to silencing the misguided followers of sects—for whom it is difficult to discard history books and not pay attention to what is in them, given their abundance, their spread in the East and West, the diverse religions of their authors, and the difference in their eras—is to choose that he is Alexander ibn Philip, the one who defeated Darius. "What is upon me if I speak my conviction? Leave the ignorant one to think ignorance is enmity." The Jews are all upon this, but they—may Allah curse them—fell into Alexander and attributed to him the ugliest attribution, even though they mention that he honored them when he came to the Sacred House and honored their rabbis. Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

Then, the question is not about the entity of Dhu al-Qarnayn, but about his affair. It is as if it were said: "And they ask you about the affair of Dhu al-Qarnayn." Say (to them in the answer), "I will recite to you from him a mention" (the address is to those who asked, the pronoun 'hu' is for Dhu al-Qarnayn, and 'min' is partitive; the intent is from his news and stories. The prepositional phrase is an adjective for "mention" that was placed before it, thus becoming a circumstantial qualifier. The intent by "recitation" is the mention; it was expressed as such because it is a narration from the side of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, i.e., I will mention to you a mentioned piece of news from his stories. It is also possible that the pronoun is for Allah, the Exalted, and 'min' is initial, and there is no ellipsis, and the recitation is upon its literal meaning, i.e., I will recite to you from His side, the Exalted, in his affair, a mention—that is, a Quran. The 'sin' is for emphasis and to denote certainty, which is appropriate for the precedence of His support for him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the confirmation of his fulfillment of his promise, i.e., I will not abandon the recitation at all, as in the saying: "I will thank ‘Amr if my term is delayed; for favors that did not grant, even if they were great." It is not for denoting that the recitation will happen in the future, as has been said, because this verse was not revealed in isolation before the revelation of the entire story, but rather it is connected to what follows it as soon as they asked him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)).