(And they followed what the devils recited): This is a conjunction coordinated with the word "cast aside" (nabadha). The pronoun refers to a group among those who were given the Book, as previously cited from Al-Suddi. It is also said: it is a conjunction coordinated with the totality of what preceded it, joining one narrative to another, and the pronoun refers to those mentioned before among the Jews, or those who were in the time of Sulayman (peace be upon him), or those who were in the time of our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), or it encompasses everyone. However, the latter is not apparent, as it would require entering into the scope of "what" (ma). Their following this is not contingent upon the coming of the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and the known statement of Al-Suddi opens the door for [the connection] being apparent, unless the basis is something else.
It is said: It is a conjunction coordinated with "they were made to drink" (ushribu), but this is extremely far-fetched; in fact, anyone who has swallowed a drop of fairness would not venture to say it. The intended meaning of "following" is to delve deeply and turn toward a thing completely. Others say it means to emulate. "What" (ma) is a relative pronoun, and "recited" (tatlu) is its predicate (the clause completing the meaning). Its meaning is "they followed" or "they read," and it is a depiction of a past state, originally talat. The Kufans’ view that the meaning is "what the devils were reciting" is supported by that [understanding], not that there is an implied kana.
The most obvious meaning of "devils" is the rebellious jinn; this is the opinion of the majority. It is said: The intent is the devils among mankind, which is the opinion of the theologians of the Mu'tazila. Al-Hasan and Al-Dahhak read al-shayatinun, similar to what Al-Asma'i narrated from the Arabs: "Such-and-such person’s orchard, around it are orchards (basatun)." This is so anomalous that some even claimed it is a grammatical error.
"Upon the kingdom of Sulayman" is connected to "recited." There is an omitted noun in the speech, meaning: "the era of his kingdom and his time," or the kingdom is a metaphor for the era. In both cases, "upon" ('ala) is in the sense of "in" (fi), just as "in" is used in the sense of "upon" in the Almighty’s saying: "I will surely crucify you in the trunks of palm trees." It is stated explicitly in Al-Tashil that it comes to signify containment (the locative), citing this verse as an example because "the kingdom"—and likewise the "era"—is not suitable to be read upon. Some scholars have rejected that "upon" can mean "in" and treated this as an instance of tadmin (incorporating the meaning of one verb into another), where tatlu (recites) takes on the meaning of tataqawwal (fabricates). Or, the "kingdom" refers to the chair, as it was one of the instruments of his rule, so the speech is similar to "I read [standing] upon the pulpit."
The object of what they recited is magic (al-sihr). Sufyan ibn 'Uyayna, Ibn Jarir, and Al-Hakim (who authenticated it) narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he said: "The devils used to eavesdrop from heaven, and when one of them heard a word, he would add a hundred lies to it. The people's hearts drank it in, and they took it as volumes of knowledge. Allah the Almighty revealed this to Sulayman ibn Dawud, who took them and buried them under the chair. When Sulayman died, a devil stood on the path and said: 'Shall I guide you to the treasure of Sulayman, which no one has a treasure like?' They said, 'Yes.' They dug it out, and it was magic. Then nations copied it. Allah then revealed the vindication of Sulayman regarding what they claimed of magic."
It is said that it was reported that Sulayman had buried many of the sciences with which Allah the Almighty had favored him under the throne of his kingdom, fearing that if he perished, the apparent knowledge would remain, but that which was buried would be lost. After some time, a group of hypocrites managed to write, interspersed with those things, matters of magic that resembled those things in some respects. Then, after his death and people finding those books, they deluded them into believing they were from the knowledge of Sulayman. The weakness of this report is clear.
"Sulayman," as in Al-Bahr, is a non-Arabic name and is prevented from taking a tanwin due to its being a proper noun and being non-Arabic. Similar examples of non-Arabic words ending in an alif and nun are Manman, Hahan, and Shaman. Its restriction is not due to being a proper noun with an added alif and nun like 'Uthman, because the addition of those is dependent on derivation and inflection, which do not enter non-Arabic names. Many people today hold the contrary view.
"And Sulayman did not disbelieve" is an interjection to exonerate Sulayman (peace be upon him) from what they attributed to him. Ibn Jarir narrated from Shahr ibn Hawshab that he said: "The Jews said, 'Look at Muhammad! He mixes truth with falsehood; he mentions Sulayman with the Prophets, yet he was only a sorcerer who rode the wind.'"
The Almighty expressed magic as "disbelief" through metonymy, out of consideration for the appropriateness of the corrective "but" (lakin) in the Almighty’s saying: But the devils disbelieved, teaching the people magic. For "disbelieved" (kafaru) here is used in its literal meaning. The sentence "teaching the people" is a state-description (hal) of the pronoun. It is said: [a state-description] of the devils, but this is rejected because "but" (lakin) does not operate on a state-description. The response given is that it contains the "scent" of a verb. It is also said: It is a substitute (badal) for "disbelieved," or an initiating sentence (isti'naf), and the pronoun refers to the devils or to those who followed.
"Magic" (al-sihr) is, in its origin, a verbal noun from sahara, yashuru (with a fatha on the 'ayn in both), meaning when one reveals what is subtle and hidden. It is among the anomalous verbal nouns. It is used for anything whose cause is subtle and hidden. Its intent is a strange phenomenon that resembles the miraculous but is not actually so, as learning it is possible, and in achieving it, one seeks help by drawing near to the devil through committing vile acts—verbally, such as incantations that contain words of polytheism, praising the devil, or invoking him; or physically, such as worshipping the stars, committing crimes, and all types of debauchery; or in belief, such as deeming worthy of favor that which necessitates drawing near to him and loving him. That is only accomplished by one who is similar to him in wickedness and corrupt nature, for compatibility is a condition for association and cooperation. Just as the angels do not cooperate with anyone except the virtuous among people, who resemble them in perseverance in worship and drawing near to Allah in word and deed, likewise the devils do not cooperate with anyone except the wicked, who resemble them in treachery and impurity in word, deed, and belief.
By this, the sorcerer is distinguished from the Prophet and the saint, so the objection of the Mu'tazila is not valid: that if it were possible for a human to manifest supernatural phenomena and report unseen matters through the devil, the path of prophethood would be confused with the path of magic. As for that which causes wonder, such as what the masters of contrivances do with the help of mechanisms constructed upon geometrical ratios—sometimes by making a vacuum full, and other times with the help of drugs like naranjiyat (pyrotechnics)—or what a practitioner of sleight of hand shows, then calling it magic is by way of metaphor, and it is also blameworthy according to some. Al-Nawawi stated in Al-Rawdah that it is forbidden.
The majority explained magic as something that breaks the norm, appearing from a wicked soul through the performance of specific actions. The majority holds that it has a reality and that the sorcerer may reach the point where he flies in the air, walks on water, kills a person, or turns a human into a donkey. The true Agent in all of that is Allah the Almighty, and His custom has not been to enable the sorcerer to part the sea, revive the dead, or cause beasts to speak, and other signs of the Prophets (peace be upon them). The Mu'tazila and Abu Ja'far al-Istarabadhi from among our companions hold that it has no reality and is merely an illusion. The Mu'tazila branded as a disbeliever anyone who said a sorcerer could reach the extent we mentioned, claiming that this would block the path of prophethood. This is not as they claimed, as is obvious.
Some researchers distinguished between magic and a miracle by the accompaniment of a challenge (tahaddi) with the miracle, unlike magic, for it cannot appear at the hands of a false claimant to prophethood, as is the constant custom of Allah, protecting this exalted station from being besieged by liars. It has become widespread that acting upon it is disbelief, until the scholar Al-Taftazani said: "There is no difference of opinion narrated regarding that." Considering it a type of "major sin" distinct from "polytheism" does not contradict this, because disbelief is more general, and polytheism is a type of it. There is debate here: First, because Sheikh Abu Mansur went to the view that saying magic is disbelief absolutely is a mistake; rather, its reality must be examined. If it contains a rejection of the conditions of faith, it is disbelief; otherwise, it is not. Perhaps what the scholar [Al-Taftazani] went to is based on the first interpretation, for in that case, there is no disagreement regarding the disbelief of the practitioner. Second, because the intent of "polytheism" in other than the major sins is absolute disbelief; otherwise, all types of disbelief would be excluded from it. Furthermore, the magic that is disbelief—the male is killed for it, but not the female. What is not disbelief, if it involves the destruction of a life, falls under the judgment of highway robbers, and both males and females are treated equally. His repentance is accepted if he repents. Whoever says it is not accepted is mistaken, for the repentance of the sorcerers of Musa was accepted. This is in Al-Madarik, and perhaps it is closer to the principles.
The famous view from Abu Hanifa (may Allah be pleased with him) is that the sorcerer is killed absolutely if it is known that he is a sorcerer, and his statement "I will leave magic and repent of it" is not accepted. If he confesses, "I used to practice magic for a period but have left it for some time," it is accepted, and he is not killed. He argued with what was narrated: that a slave-girl of Hafsa, Mother of the Believers (may Allah be pleased with her), bewitched her, so they took her, and she confessed to that, so she ordered 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd to kill her. 'Uthman’s (may Allah be pleased with him) objection was only to her killing her without his permission. And also what was narrated from 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "Kill every male and female sorcerer," so they killed three sorceresses. The Shafi'is looked into this argument and objected to the view of killing absolutely, saying that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not kill the Jew who bewitched him. The believer is like him, because of his saying (peace be upon him): "They have what the Muslims have, and upon them is what is upon the Muslims." The verification of this is in Al-Furu'.
There is a difference of opinion regarding teaching and learning it. Some say it is disbelief because of this verse, as it arranges the judgment upon a suitable attribute (wasf munasib), which indicates causality. It was responded to by saying that we do not concede that it contains that, for the meaning is that they disbelieved while simultaneously teaching magic. It is said: They are both forbidden, which the majority concluded. It is said: They are disliked (makruh), which some went to. It is said: They are permissible. The teaching mentioned here for censure is interpreted as teaching for the purpose of leading astray and misguidance. Imam Al-Razi leaned toward this, saying: "The researchers agreed that knowledge of magic is not vile or forbidden, because knowledge in itself is noble, due to the generality of His saying: Are those who know equal to those who do not know? And if magic were not known, it would not be possible to distinguish between it and the miracle. Knowledge that a miracle is a miracle is obligatory, and that upon which the obligatory depends is obligatory. This requires that acquiring knowledge of magic be obligatory, and how can that which is obligatory be forbidden and vile?" Some of them reported the obligation of learning it for the mufti so that he knows what kills and what does not, in order to give a ruling on the obligation of qisas (retribution).
The truth in my view is prohibition, following the majority, except for a legal necessity. In what he—may Allah have mercy on him—said, there is room for consideration. First, we do not claim it is vile in itself; rather, its vileness is with regard to what follows from it. So its prohibition is by way of "blocking the means" (sadd al-dhara'i'). How many things have been forbidden for that reason? In the Hadith: "He who hovers around the sanctuary is about to fall into it." Second, because the reliance of distinguishing it from a miracle on knowing it is forbidden. Do you not see that most scholars, if not all except the rare few, knew the difference between them without knowing the science of magic? What was previously mentioned is a sufficient differentiator. If learning it were obligatory for that reason, you would see the earliest generation (the Salaf) as the most knowledgeable of it, yet nothing of that was narrated from them. Do you think they neglected this duty and this [later] speaker performed it, or that he neglected it just as they did? Third, because what was narrated from some of them is not correct, because the mufti’s ruling on the obligation of qisas or its absence does not necessitate his knowledge of the science of magic; for the manner of his ruling, according to what the scholar Ibn Hajar mentioned, is: if two just witnesses who knew magic and repented of it testify that it usually kills, the sorcerer is killed; otherwise, not.
Some scholars have applied the term "magic" to walking among people spreading slander, because it turns a friend into an enemy and an enemy into a friend, just as it was applied to the eloquent, sweet use of language due to its power of attraction, and it is called "lawful magic." From this is his saying (peace be upon him): "Verily, some eloquence is magic." The view that it is said in a tone of censure for eloquence and rhetoric is far-fetched, even if 'Amir al-Sha'bi, the narrator of the Hadith, held it.
The apparent meaning of the Almighty's saying teaching (yu'allimun) is that they make them understand it through reading and instruction. It is said: They direct them to those books, so that direction is called teaching, applying the name of the cause to the effect. It is said: The meaning is that they instill in their hearts that it is the truth, that it harms and benefits, and that Sulayman (peace be upon him) achieved what he achieved through it. It is said: yu'allimun is in the sense of yu'limun (to inform), i.e., they tell them what or whom they can learn it from.
'Asim, Ibn Kathir, Abu 'Amr, and Nafi' read lakinna with a shadda (emphatic), and Ibn 'Amir, Hamza, and Al-Kisa'i with a takhfif (reduction). The nominative state of what follows it is by way of the subject (mubtada') and predicate (khabar). Whether its operation is permissible if it is reduced is a subject of disagreement; the majority forbid it, while the correct view, and that of Yunus and Al-Akhfash, is that it is permissible. The correct view is that it is a simple particle (basita). Some claimed it is composed of the prohibitive "no" (la), the address particle "ka," and the emphatic "anna" with the hamza omitted for heaviness, but this is closer to corruption.
"And what was sent down upon the two angels"—the intent is the species; it is a conjunction coordinated with "magic." They are one and the same, except that it reveals the conceptual difference as a difference of essence, as in the verse: To the noble king and the son of the brave. The benefit of the conjunction is to specify that they teach what is simultaneously magic and something sent down upon the two angels, which adds to their censure for committing the prohibition in two ways. Sometimes the relative pronoun refers to the specific/known, which is another, stronger type, making it a conjunction of the specific to the general, pointing to its perfection. Mujahid said: It is inferior to "magic," and it is what causes separation between a person and his spouse, nothing more. The famous view is the first. It is permitted to coordinate it with "what the devils recite," as if it were said: "They followed the magic recorded in the books and other things." These two angels sent down magic to teach it as a trial (ibtila') from Allah the Almighty for the people. Whoever learned and acted upon it disbelieved, and whoever learned and guarded against acting upon it remained in faith. Allah the Almighty may test His servants with whatever He wishes, as He tested the people of Talut with the river, and to distinguish it from the miracle, as it became widespread in that era and the sorcerers manifested strange things that caused doubt regarding prophethood. So Allah sent the two angels to teach the chapters of magic to remove the doubts and remove the harm from the path. It is said this was in the time of Idris (peace be upon him).
As for what was narrated that the angels wondered at the Children of Adam for their disobedience to what Allah commanded, and said to Him: "If we were in their place, we would not have disobeyed You," He said: "Choose two angels from among you." They chose them, so they descended to the earth and appeared as two humans. Allah cast desire upon them, and they judged between people. They were tempted by a woman called Zuhra and sought her, but she refused unless they worshipped an idol, drank wine, or killed a person. They did so. Then she learned from them what she ascended with to the sky, and she was transformed into this star. They wanted to ascend, but they could not, so they were given a choice between the punishment of this world and the hereafter, and they chose the punishment of this world. They are now being punished in it, along with other traces that reached more than twenty chains of transmission.
A group has rejected this, among them Qadi 'Iyad, stating that nothing of what the chroniclers mentioned and the exegetes relayed regarding the story of Harut and Marut has been authentically or even weakly reported from the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and it is not something taken by analogy. In Al-Bahr, it is mentioned that nothing of it is correct, and it is not correct that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) cursed Zuhra, nor Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them), contrary to what was narrated. Imam Al-Razi said, after mentioning the narrative: "This narrative is corrupt, rejected, and unacceptable." Al-Shihab al-'Iraqi stated that whoever believes regarding Harut and Marut that they are two angels being punished for their sin with Zuhra is a disbeliever in Allah the Great, for the angels are infallible: They do not disobey Allah in what He commands them and they do what they are commanded; they are not arrogant toward His worship, nor are they weary; they glorify [Him] night and day, they do not slacken. And the statement that [Zuhra] appeared to them in human form and what happened happened, then she was returned to her place, is neither reasonable nor acceptable.
Imam Al-Suyuti objected to those who denied the story by saying that Imam Ahmad, Ibn Hibban, Al-Bayhaqi, and others narrated it as marfu' (attributed to the Prophet) and mawquf (attributed to the companions) from 'Ali, Ibn Abbas, Ibn 'Umar, and Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with them) with numerous authentic chains of transmission that someone familiar with them would almost be certain of their authenticity due to their frequency and the strength of their transmitters. Some researchers went to the view that what was narrated is a narration of what the Jews said, which is false in itself. Its falsehood in itself does not negate the authenticity of the narration, nor does it refute what Imam Al-Suyuti said; rather, it refutes those who deny it entirely.
Perhaps this is from the realm of symbols and signs: the two angels are the theoretical intellect and the practical intellect, which are from the world of holiness; the woman called Zuhra is the speaking soul; their exposure to her is their teaching her what makes her happy; her causing them to commit sins is her inciting them by the nature of the competing temperament to incline toward the base, earthly things that defile their essences; her ascending to the sky with what she learned from them is her ascension to the High Assembly and her mixing with the holy ones due to her accepting their advice; and their remaining punished is their remaining preoccupied with managing the body and being barred from ascending to the sky of the Presence, for the bird of intellect does not hover around its sanctuary.
Some of the greats said in resolving this symbol: The spirit and the intellect, which are from the world of abstractions, descended from the sky of abstraction to the earth of attachment, so they became enamored with the body—which is like Zuhra in its utmost beauty—because their perfection depended on it. Thus, they acquired, through its medium, sins, polytheism, and the attainment of base sensory pleasures. Then she ascended to the sky by reaching, through their good management, the perfection fitting her, then she was transformed, meaning the attachment was cut off and the elements were dispersed. They remained punished with the punishment of deprivation from connecting to the world of holiness, suffering spiritual pains, their states inverted, as attachment overcame abstraction and closeness was inverted into distance.
It is said: The purpose of this is to point out that whoever is an angel, if he follows desire, he descends from the rank of the angels to the rank of the beasts, and whoever is a woman of desire, if she breaks her desire and overcomes it, she ascends to the rank of the king and connects to the sky of stations and ranks.
Whoever believes in the authenticity of this story in reality and takes it literally has ridden a path of extravagance, spoken in error, and opened a door of magic that makes the dead laugh and the living weep, lowers the banner of Islam, and raises the heads of the ignorant disbelievers, as is not hidden from the fair-minded researchers among the scholars.
Ibn Abbas, Al-Hasan, Abu al-Aswad, and Al-Dahhak read al-malikayn (with a kasra on the lam). Some interpret the reading of the fatha as that, saying they are two men who were called "angels" due to their righteousness. This is supported by what is said: they are Dawud and Sulayman. It is refuted by the statement of Al-Hasan that they were two laborers in Babylon, Iraq. Some say they are angels who appeared in the form of kings; here, the interpretation of the kasra is [based] on the fatha, opposite to what was mentioned.
"The descent" is either literal or means [Allah] casting it into their hearts. "In Babylon"—the ba is in the sense of "in," and it is connected to "sent down" or an implied word serving as a state-description for "the two angels" or the pronoun in "sent down." It is, as Ibn Abbas and Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with them) said, a city in the district of Kufa. It is said: Babylon in Iraq. Qatada said: It is between Nisibis and Ra's al-'Ayn. It is said: Mount Damavand. It is said: A city in the Maghrib. The most famous today is the second. For some, it is the first. It is said it was named Babylon for the confusion of tongues there after the fall of the tower of Nimrod.
Al-Dinawari in Al-Majalasa and Ibn 'Asakir narrated from the path of Nu'aym ibn Salim—who is accused—from Anas ibn Malik, who said: "When Allah gathered the creatures to Babylon, He sent them an east wind, a west wind, a southern wind, and a northern wind, and they gathered them to Babylon. They gathered on that day, looking for what they were gathered for, when a herald called out: 'Whoever makes the west to his right and the east to his left, and directs his face toward the Sacred House, he shall have the speech of the people of heaven.' Ya'rub ibn Qahtan stood up, and it was said to him: 'O Ya'rub ibn Qahtan ibn Hud, you are the one.' So he was the first to speak Arabic. The herald continued calling out, 'Whoever does such-and-such, he shall have such-and-such,' until they split into seventy-two languages, the voice ceased, and the tongues were confused. So it was named Babylon, and the language that day was Babylonian."
I have hesitation regarding both statements, or rather, a lack of acceptance. What I incline to is that Babylon is a non-Arabic name, as Abu Hayyan stated, not Arabic as Al-Akhfash’s speech indicates, and that it is originally a name for the great river in some ancient non-Arabic languages. It was applied to that land due to the proximity of the Euphrates to it. Perhaps this is like the naming of Baghdad as "Dar al-Salam" (House of Peace) on the basis that Salam is a name for the Tigris. I have seen detail for this—I do not know today in which book—and I think it is close to what I have mentioned, so let it be noted.
Some forbade prayer in that land, arguing with what Abu Dawud, Ibn Abi Hatim, and Al-Bayhaqi narrated in his Sunan from 'Ali (may Allah honor his face) that: "My beloved (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) forbade me from praying in the land of Babylon, for it is cursed." Al-Khattabi said: "There is discussion regarding the chain of this Hadith, and I do not know any scholar who forbade prayer in it." It seems, if the Hadith is authentic, that he forbade him from taking it as a homeland and a residence, so if he stayed in it, his prayer in it was [forbidden]. This is from the category of "suspension" in the science of rhetoric ('ilm al-bayan). Or perhaps the prohibition was for him specifically; do you not see he said: "forbade me"? Similar to it is another Hadith: "He forbade me from reciting while prostrating or bowing," and I do not say "he forbade you." That was a warning from him regarding what he encountered of tribulation in that region.
"Harut and Marut" is an explanatory conjunction ('atf bayan) for the two angels. They are two non-Arabic names that are prevented from taking a tanwin due to being proper nouns and non-Arabic. It is said: they are Arabic, from hart and mart, meaning "breaking." Their names before were 'Azza and 'Azaya, but when they committed the sin, they were named that. This is challenged by their being prevented from taking a tanwin, as there is nothing but the proper noun and non-Arabic status. Some labored for this by saying: it is possible to say they are transposed from hart and mart, and the confinement of transposition to the preserved patterns is not conceded. It is as you see.
Al-Hasan and Al-Zuhri read them in the nominative, on the basis that the implication is: "They are Harut and Marut." Among what causes wonder is what Imam Al-Qurtubi said: "Harut and Marut are a substitute for the 'devils' in the reading with the shadda (emphatic), and 'what' in 'and what was sent down' is a negation, and the intent by the two angels is Jibril and Mika'il, because the Jews claimed that Allah sent them down with magic." In the speech, there is an advancement and postponement; the implication is: "(And Sulayman did not disbelieve) (and what was not sent down upon the two angels) (but the devils) (Harut and Marut) (disbelieved, teaching the people magic) (in Babylon)." In this case, the substitute is either a partial substitute for the whole, and they were mentioned by name because of their rebellion and because they were the leaders in teaching; or a substitute of the whole for the whole, either on the basis that the plural is used for the dual, or that they are expressions for two tribes of devils that did not have any others with this attribute. Stranger than his saying this is his saying: "This is the most worthy interpretation of the verse, and the most correct thing said about it; do not look at anything else." It is not hidden to any fair person that it is not fitting for a believer to carry the speech of Allah—which is in the highest ranks of rhetoric and eloquence—to what is lower than that. It is nothing but a distortion of the Book of Allah the Almighty and a debasement of it from its summit. The evils of lack of capacity are uncountable. It is said they are a substitute for "the people," i.e., "teaching the people," especially "Harut and Marut," and the negation remains the negation.
"And they two did not teach anyone until they said, 'We are but a trial, so do not disbelieve'"—meaning the two angels did not teach anyone until they advised him and said to him: "We are but a trial from Allah the Almighty, so whoever learns from us and acts upon it disbelieves, and whoever learns and guards against it remains in faith. So do not disbelieve by believing in its truth or permitting acting upon it." It is said: "Do not learn it, believing it to be the truth, lest you disbelieve." This is based on the Mu'tazili view that magic is deception and illusion, and whoever believes in its reality disbelieves. "Anyone" (ahad) is an extra particle for the object to emphasize encompassing the negation. The singular "trial" (fitna) is used despite the multiplicity of the informed party because it is a verbal noun. The state of "we are" (innama nahnu) is a conformity for emphasis. The restriction is to state that they have no business in what they are engaged in other than this, so that people turn away from learning it. "Until" is for the end-point. It is said: it is in the sense of "except," and the sentence is in the position of being an object for the state-description from the pronoun in "teaching." It is apparent that the saying is one time; the saying that it is three, seven, or nine is not established.
There is a difference of opinion in how that knowledge was received from them. Mujahid said: "No one from the people reaches them; rather, two devils come to them every year, once, and they learn from them." It is said, and this is the apparent meaning: "They used to perform the teaching themselves at certain times." It is most probable that they were not at that time in their angelic form. As for what Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Al-Hakim (who authenticated it), and Al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan narrated from 'Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) that she said: "A woman from Dumat al-Jandal came to me, seeking the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) after his death, to ask him about something she had entered into concerning magic, though she did not act upon it. She said: 'I had a husband who was away from me, so I went to an old woman and complained to her. She said: If you do what I order you, I will make him come to you. When night came, she brought me two black dogs, and I rode one and she rode the other, and it was nothing until we stopped in Babylon. There, I saw two men suspended by their feet. They said: What brought you? I said: To learn magic. They said: We are but a trial, so do not disbelieve and return. I refused and said: No. They said: Go to that oven and urinate in it. I went and urinated in it. I saw a horseman wearing iron emerge from me until he went up to the sky and disappeared from me until I could not see him. I went to them and told them, and they said: You have spoken the truth; that was your faith leaving you. Go, and you will not want anything but it will happen'—the news in its entirety."
It and its likes, of the stories mentioned by the exegetes in this chapter, are among those upon which the people of intellect do not rely. Proceeding to deny such a woman from Dumat al-Jandal is more appropriate than accusing the intellect in accepting this story, for which nothing has been authenticated from the Messenger of the Lord of the worlds (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). If only the books of Islam did not contain these superstitions that a rational person would not believe, even if they were confused dreams!
The verse was cited as evidence by those who permitted learning magic. Its aspect is that it contains an indication of the occurrence of teaching from the angels despite their infallibility, and learning is a derivative of that. In fact, they are united in essence and different in consideration, like the "positing" (ijab) and "necessitation" (wujub). It is not hidden that there is no evidence in it for general permission, because that teaching was for trial and distinction, as we mentioned. Those who hold the view of prohibition have mentioned: "Learning magic, if it is assumed that it is prevalent in a region and it is desired to clarify its corruption to them so that they might return to the truth, is not forbidden, just as learning philosophy is not forbidden for the one appointed to defend the religion by refuting doubts, even if its most common state is prohibition." This does not contradict the generality of the statement of its prohibition.
Whoever says that Harut and Marut are of the devils says: "The meaning of the verse is that they do not teach anyone magic until they advise him and say: 'We are two who are tempted by believing in its permissibility and acting upon it, so do not be like us in that, lest you disbelieve.'" In that case, there is no argument at all. We mentioned that speaking by way of advice in this aspect is the apparent meaning. Al-Mahdawi recounted that it is by way of mockery, not advice; this is more appropriate to the state of the devils.
Talha ibn Musarrif read 'allaman with reduction, from informing (i'lam), and some interpreted the reading of the shadda upon it. Ubayy read with the manifestation of the subject: "And they learned from them"—a conjunction coordinated with the negated sentence because it is in the strength of the positive, as if he said: "They taught them after that saying, so they learned." It is not a conjunction with the negated [sentence] without this consideration, as Abu 'Ali imagined from the speech of Al-Zajjaj. Some coordinated it with "they teach" (omitted), and some with "they come" (omitted). The raised pronoun refers to what "anyone" indicates, which is the people or the individual, interpreting it by meaning, as in the Almighty's saying: And there is no one among you who could prevent us from him. Al-Mahdawi recounted the permissibility of coordinating it with "teaching the people," so the reference of the pronoun in that case is apparent. It is said: In the speech, there is an omitted subject, i.e., "they learn," so it is an initiating sentence coordinated with what preceded it, from the conjunction of the nominal sentence to the verbal one. This is attributed to Sibawayh, but it is not good. The pronoun in "from them" returns to the two angels.
"And they did not teach anyone from the people"—whoever made it return to magic, disbelief, or trial and magic. Coordination of "they learn" with "they teach," and interpreting "they did not teach" as negation, and "until they said" as emphasis for it, i.e., "They did not teach magic to anyone; rather, they forbade him until they said," etc. It is like your saying: "I did not order him to do such-and-such until I said to him: If you do, you will receive such-and-such." And "what was sent down" is also negation, coordinated with "what they disbelieved," and it is as you see.
"What they separate with it between the person and his spouse"—i.e., that which, or something they separate with, which is the magic that removes, by way of causality, the affection and love between spouses and causes the hatred and enmity that necessitate separation between them. It is said: The intent is "what they separate with," being disbelief, because if he learns it, he disbelieves, so his wife is separated from him; or if he learns, he acts upon it, so people see it and believe it is the truth, so they disbelieve, and their spouses are separated. "Person" (al-mar') is the man. The most eloquent is to open the mim absolutely. It is recounted to be closed absolutely. It is recounted that it follows the vowel of the inflection. Its feminine is "woman." Its plural has come with the waw and nun, so they said al-mar'un. "Spouse" is the wife of the man. It is said: the intent by it here is the relative, the brother, the agreeable one. From it is: From every delightful pair; Gather those who have wronged and their spouses. Al-Hasan, Al-Zuhri, and Qatada read al-mar without the ha' (i.e., al-mar'), reduced. Ibn Abi Ishaq read al-mur' with the mim closed with a hamza. Al-Ashhab read with a kasra and a hamza, narrated from Al-Hasan. Al-Zuhri also read al-mar with a fatha, omitting the hamza and emphasizing the ra'.
"And they are not harming with it anyone"—the pronoun refers to the sorcerers to whom the pronoun in "they learn" returned. It is said: to the Jews to whom the pronoun in "they followed" returned. It is said: to the devils. The pronoun in "with it" returns to "what." "From" is extra to encompass the negation, as if it were said: "And they do not harm anyone with it." Al-A'mash read bi-dari with the nun omitted, interpreted on the basis that it was omitted for reduction, even if the active participle is not a predicate for an alif. Ibn Malik has stated the non-conditionality, because of his saying: "And we are not, if you come to Salma, claimants to you, except that if we make peace, we make peace," and their saying: "My eggs are two hundred and my eggs are a hundred." It is said that it was omitted for the annexation (idafa) to an omitted noun implied in wording, similar to his saying: "O Taym of Taym of 'Adi" in one of the interpretations. It is said: for the annexation to "anyone," on the basis of making the prepositional phrase a part of it, and the separation by the adverb is heard, as in his saying: "They are two brothers in war, he who I do not imagine... and if he fears a stumble one day, he calls them." Zamakhshari chose this, but it is argued that making the prepositional phrase part of the governed noun is nothing, because it affects it, and a part of the thing does not affect it. Also, the separation between the annexed and the annexed-to by the adverb, even if heard, is from the necessities of poetry, as Abu Hayyan stated. Because it was thought this was the only outlet, Ibn Jinni said: "This reading is the furthest of the anomalies except by the permission of Allah."
"Except by the permission of Allah" is an exceptional exception from states. The ba is connected to an omitted word acting as a state for the pronoun in "harming" or for its object that relies on the negation, or the omitted pronoun in "with it," or the verbal noun understood from the description. The intent of "permission" here is allowing between the bewitched and the harm of magic; Al-Hasan said this. It is evidence that it contains deposited harm, if Allah wishes, He intervenes between it and it, and if He wishes, He leaves it and what He deposited in it. This is the school of the Salaf regarding all causes and effects. It is said: Permission is in the sense of "command," and it is used metaphorically for creation by the relation of arranging existence on each of them in the aggregate. The evidence is that vile acts are not commanded. Thus, it contains the negation of causes being effective in themselves; rather, it is by His making them causes, either by custom or in reality. It is said: It is here in the sense of "knowledge," and it does not contain an indication of negating the effect in the essence like the first two aspects.
"And they learn what harms them" because they intend by it action, a decisive intention, and the intention of sin is likewise a sin; or because knowledge invites to action and draws to it, especially the action of evil which is the desire of the soul. So the form of the imperfect verb is for the present on the first [view] and for the future on the second. "And does not benefit them"—coordinated with what preceded it, to signal that it is pure evil and sheer harm, not like some harms mixed with benefit and harm, because they do not intend by it escaping from being deceived by the lies of the sorcerers, nor removing the harm from the path so that there might be some benefit in the aggregate. Bringing "no" (la) is a sign that it is not beneficial in the two abodes because it has no connection to the regularity of the livelihood or the hereafter. In the judgment that it is harming and not beneficial, there is an eloquent warning for anyone who "listens while he is a witness" to avoid dealing with it, and incitement to guard against it.
Some permitted that "and does not benefit them" be with an implied "it is," so it would be in the position of a nominative, and the waw would be for the state; its weakness is not hidden. "And they have certainly known"—connected to His saying: "And when there came to them," etc., and the story of magic is an aside in the middle. So the pronoun is for those Jews. It is said: The pronoun is for the Jews who were in the era of Sulayman (peace be upon him). It is said: for the two angels because they were saying "do not disbelieve." The pronoun of the plural was used upon the view of those who see that for whoever bought it, i.e., exchanged what the devils recited for the Book of Allah. The lam is for beginning and enters the subject and the imperfect verb. Its entry on the past with qad is frequent, and without it, it is impossible. [It enters] the predicate of the subject if it precedes it, and the governed noun of the predicate if it is in the position of the subject. The Kufans make it in all of these the answer to an implied oath, and there is no "beginning lam" in existence according to them, as the speech of Al-Radi indicates. It has been suspended here from action, whether it is transitive to one object or two.
"Whoever" (man) is a relative noun as a subject, and "bought it" is its connection. His saying: "He has no share in the Hereafter" is an initiating sentence, its predicate being "he has no," and "from" (min) is extra in the subject. "In the Hereafter" is connected to what the predicate is connected to, or is a state from the pronoun in it or from its reference. "Share" (khallaq) is a portion, said Mujahid; or a defined amount, said Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both); or a measure, said Qatada. From it is his saying: "You have no house at the high ones, and you have no share in Ghalib." Al-Zajjaj said: "It is mostly used for good and occurs for evil on a rare basis." Abu al-Baqa', following Al-Farra', went to the view that the lam is setting up for an oath, and "whoever" (man) is a conditional subject, "bought it" is its predicate, and "he has no," etc., is the answer to the oath. The answer to the conditional is omitted, indicated by it, because if an oath and a condition meet, their predecessor is usually answered. There is what there is in it, because it was narrated from Al-Zajjaj rejecting whoever said the conditionality of "whoever" here, because it is not a place for a condition. Abu Hayyan interpreted it by the verb being past in wording and meaning, because the purchase had already occurred, so making it a condition is not correct, because the verb of the condition, if it is past in wording, must be future in meaning. Al-Radi mentioned in Zayd is standing that the beginning lam is for emphasis and the oath is not estimated, as the Kufans did, because the origin is the absence of estimation and the emphasis requested from the oath is obtained from the lam. The statement that the lam is emphasis for the first, or extra, is something that is not validly correct. As for the first, because the construction of the word, if it is on one letter, is not repeated alone, but with its support, except in the necessity of poetry, as Al-Radi approved. As for the second, because the known is the addition of the prepositional lam, which is kasra-voweled in the apparent noun.
"And how wretched is that for which they sold themselves"—the lam in it is also a beginning lam. The famous view is that it is an answer to an oath, and the sentence is coordinated with the first oath-sentence. "What" (ma) is an indefinite noun distinguishing the ambiguous pronoun in "how wretched" (bi'sa), and the specified for censure is omitted. "Sold" (sharau) accepts both meanings, and the apparent is the apparent, i.e., "By Allah, how wretched a thing they sold their souls for," meaning they sold them, or they bought them in their claim of that purchase. In Al-Bahr: "How wretched is what they sold their souls for—magic or disbelief."
"If they had known"—i.e., the blameworthiness of the mentioned purchase, they would have refrained from it. There is no contradiction between establishing knowledge for them first and negating it from them second. Either because what is established for them is the innate intellect and what is negated from them is the acquisition which is part of the obligation; or because the first is knowledge in general and the second is knowledge in detail—so a person may know, for example, the vileness of a thing, then not know that his action is vile—so it is as if they knew that buying the soul with magic is blameworthy, but they did not think that what they were doing was part of that vile thing; or because they knew of the punishment and did not know its reality and intensity; or because the speech is carried out on the basis of lowering the one who knows a thing to the position of the ignorant, and the existence of the thing to the position of its non-existence due to the lack of its fruit, since they did not act upon their knowledge. Or upon the basis of lowering the one who knows the benefit of the news and its necessity to the position of the ignorant, based on the fact that His saying: "If they had known" means: "If they had knowledge of that purchase, they would have refrained from it," i.e., they have no knowledge, so they do not refrain. This is the news delivered to them.
The scholar Al-Taftazani’s objection—that if this news were assumed to be delivered to them, there is no meaning for them being knowledgeable of its content, how so when its opposite has been established in "and they had certainly known"—is responded to: First, that the address is explicitly to the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and implicitly to them, and that is why it was emphasized. Second, that what is derived from "and they had certainly known" is the establishment of knowledge for them in reality, and what is derived from the news delivered to them is the negation of knowledge from them by way of lowering, and there is no contradiction between them. Third, that the one who knows, when he acts contrary to his knowledge, is one who knows that he is in the position of the ignorant in the absence of the fruit of his knowledge resulting, and the requirement of this knowledge is that he refrain from that action. So, in the case we are in, they were knowing in it that they have no knowledge and that they are in the position of the ignorant in that purchase, and the requirement of this knowledge is that they refrain from it. Since they did not refrain, they were in the position of the ignorant in their not proceeding upon the requirement of this knowledge, so the news was delivered to them that they have no knowledge, despite their knowledge of it. Thus it was said, and what it contains of intense contrivance is not hidden.
Some responded to the appearance of contradiction by saying that the object of "they know" is what "how wretched is what they sold" points to, i.e., the blameworthiness of the purchase, and the object of "they knew" is that they have no portion in the Hereafter. Knowledge that they have no portion in the Hereafter does not contradict the negation of knowledge of the blameworthiness of the purchase by them believing it is permissible, so there is no need for all that preceded. It is objected that knowledge that the mentioned purchase is a cause for deprivation in the Hereafter, without knowledge that it is blameworthy, is something that is not understood by the masters of intellect.
The statement that the object of "they knew" is omitted—i.e., they certainly knew that it harms them and does not benefit them—and "for whoever bought it" is related to the beginning of the story, and the pronoun in "how wretched is what they sold" returning to "whoever bought it" is very weak. "How wretched is what they buy."
Resolving the contradiction by the fact that He first established knowledge of the evil of what they sold with the Book, with respect to the Hereafter, then censured it for evil absolutely in religion and this world, because "how wretched" is for general censure. So the negated [knowledge] is knowledge of evil absolutely, meaning: "If they had known its harm in religion and this world, they would have refrained." They were deceived by the delusion of immediate benefit. Or [by the fact] that what was established first is the knowledge that "what they sold" had no portion for them in the Hereafter, not that they "sold" their souls for it and took them out of their hands entirely; rather, they thought that their forefathers, the Prophets, would intercede for them in the Hereafter. And the knowledge that is negated is this knowledge. The [problem] in it is not hidden. First, because the generality of censure in "how wretched," even if it is said to exist, is with respect to the individuals of the subject in itself, without exposing times and places, and committing to that is not free from turbidity. Second, because restricting the portion to it, despite it being an indefinite noun accompanied by "from" in the context of a negation, is not called for by anything but narrowness of capacity.
The response by returning the pronoun of "they knew" to "the people" or "the devils," and "they sold" to the Jews, is embarking on fragmentation without necessity calling for it, and without a clear sign indicating it. After all calculations, the most worthy in my view for the answer is that the speech is based on "lowering to the status of the ignorant," and there is no doubt in the frequency of the existence of that in the glorious Book. The responses that were mentioned from before, despite the flow of speech in them upon the requirement of the apparent, are not free in the hidden [meaning] from something, so reflect.
