Tafsir of Al-Anbiya' 21:63

(He said, "Rather, this, their greatest one, did it...")

If the interrogation were intended for confirmation, the response would have been "I did it" or "I did not do it." Al-Khatib objected to this, arguing that the interrogation may be taken in its primary sense, as there is nothing in the context indicating that they knew he was the one who broke the idols, which would prevent it from being interpreted as a genuine question. This was countered by the fact that the verses preceding this indicate as much; namely, that he had sworn, "By Allah, I will surely plot against your idols," and subsequently, when they saw the idols broken, they asked, "Who has done this?" It is apparent that they deduced this from his oath and his denigration of the idols.

One might argue that the oath, as many have stated, was made in private or heard by only one person, and His saying, "They said, 'We heard a young man...'" along with "They said, 'Who has done this?'" suggests that some among them did not know he was the one who broke the idols. Thus, it is not far-fetched that "Have you done this?" was the speech of those particular individuals. It may also be said that after deliberating on the matter of the idols and some informing others of what convinced them that he was the one who broke them, they all became certain that he was the breaker. Consequently, "Have you done this?" originated from those seeking confirmation of the perpetrator.

He—peace be upon him—adopted a strategy of double entendre (ta’rid) in his response, leading them toward his objective, which was to compel them with the proof in the most subtle and excellent manner, urging them to reflect upon the state of their deities while simultaneously guarding against falsehood. He highlighted the "greatest one" in the position of the one who directly performed the act by attributing it to him, just as he highlighted it by placing the axe on his neck or in his hand. He intended to attribute it to him by way of causation, as he saw their veneration for that idol was greater than their veneration for the rest of the idols arranged for worship alongside Allah Almighty. He became enraged by this, and thus attributed the act to him through a metaphorical, intellectual attribution, considering that idol the catalyst for his anger. The underlying meaning is: "I did it, due to the intensity of my anger at the excessiveness of [your] veneration for this one."

He did not break it—despite his anger dictating that he might—in order to manifest the proof. Naming this "a lie" in the authentic Hadith is of the nature of metaphor, because the imagery of the idols resembles the form of a person. Thus, the argument used by some to deny the infallibility of the Prophets is invalidated.

It is also said in justification of this: It is a narration of what their own doctrine necessitates to be permissible. It means that since they held it to be the greatest of gods, they exalted its divinity, which requires that none be worshipped alongside it, and it requires the annihilation of whoever shares in that divinity. It is as if he said, "This, their greatest one, did it, according to the requirements of your own doctrine," and the proposition is possible. It is narrated that he said, "This, their greatest one did it, for he was angered that these should be worshipped alongside him, and he is greater than them." It is said that this was an analogy intended to warn them of the wrath of Allah Almighty upon them for associating others with Him through the worship of idols.

It is also said that he intended nothing by this other than establishing the act for himself in the most eloquent way, incorporating ridicule and exposing their error. It is like when an illiterate person asks you about something you wrote in elegant calligraphy, and you are famous for your beautiful handwriting, saying, "Did you write this?" and you reply, "No, you wrote it." You did not intend to deny it from yourself and attribute it to the illiterate person; rather, you intended to confirm it for yourself while ridiculing your interlocutor. The author of Al-Fara'id objected to this, saying it is only valid if the act is circulating between him and the greatest one and does not admit a third party.

This is refuted by the fact that it is baseless, because the question "Have you done this?" is a confirmation, not an interrogation, as you heard from the learned scholar, and as has been explicitly stated by Sheikh Abd al-Qahir and Imam al-Sakkaki. Thus, the possibility of a third party is dismissed. Even if we concede that the interrogation is taken at its face value, the implication of the attribution in the answer to one who is not fit for it—using the particle of disjunction (bal)—is sufficient. Its meaning is that the question is invalid and that no one but me is fit for this act.

Yes, it is argued that their guidance toward reflecting on the state of their deities and forcing the proof upon them—as indicated by His saying, "So ask them, if they are able to speak"—is not apparent under this interpretation. It is said that "This, their greatest one did it" is the answer to his saying "if they are able to speak" in meaning, and his saying "So ask them" is a parenthetical sentence linked with the fa, as in the saying: "For knowledge, for a person's knowledge benefits him." Thus, the greatest one being the doer becomes conditional upon them being able to speak, which is impossible; therefore, that which is suspended upon it is likewise impossible. Ibn Qutaybah pointed toward something similar, though it contradicts the apparent meaning.

It is also said that the discourse concludes at his saying "did it," and the hidden pronoun refers to "a youth" or to Abraham. It is not hidden that both "a youth" and "Abraham" are mentioned in a speech not delivered in the presence of Abraham such that the pronoun could refer back to him, and the disjunction would then be misplaced. The appropriate response would be "Yes," and there is no justification for turning away from the apparent meaning here. It is attributed to Al-Kisa'i that he placed the stop at "did it" as well, but he said the subject is omitted, meaning: "Someone did it." Abu al-Baqa' objected to this as being far-fetched because the omission of the subject is not permissible—according to the majority—whereas Al-Kisa'i maintains its permissibility.

It is also said that it is permissible to say he intended the omission to be an implied pronoun. Most reciters today stop at that, but it is baseless. Others say the stop is at "their greatest one," and he meant himself, because a human is greater than any idol. This interpretation is, in my view, a form of delirium. Similarly, it is claimed he meant Allah Almighty, for He is the Greatest of gods, but the intention they attribute to it is not observed. Al-Farra' is credited with saying the fa in "fa'alahu" is a conjunction, and alahu means la'allahu (perhaps), which he lightened. He cited as evidence the recitation of Ibn al-Sumayqa' "fa'alahu" with a doubled lam. It is clear that the speech of Allah the Almighty is far above such a derivation; the verse is in a state of extreme ambiguity, and what has been mentioned regarding its meaning is very far from its wording.

Some claim that the verse is to be taken at its apparent meaning, asserting that the occurrence of lying by the Prophets for the sake of a greater benefit is permissible. To this, it is said that such a view necessitates the removal of trust in the divine laws, due to the possibility of lying therein for the sake of benefit. The truth is that there is no lie at all, and there is sufficient room in the use of double entendres (ma'arid) to avoid lying. He only said "If they are able to speak"—rather than "if they are able to hear or reason," even though the question is also dependent on hearing and reasoning—because the result of the questioning is the answer; their inability to speak is more evident, and shaming them through this is more effective. This has been achieved just as His words have articulated.