Tafsir of Al-Hajj 22:13

(He calls upon him whose harm is closer than his benefit): This is a resumption (isti’naf) that clarifies the final outcome of his supplication and worship of other than Allah the Exalted, and establishes that this is indeed a far-reaching error. It removes any notion that might be imagined regarding the negation of harm from his deity through direct action, by also negating it through causation. "Calling" (al-du’a) here carries the meaning of "speaking," as in the verse of Antarah: "They call out to Antarah, while the spears are like the ropes of a well on the chest of the dark [horse]." The lam (in l-man) is the lam of inception (lam al-ibtida') entering the sentence which is stated as the object of the speech. Man is the subject (mubtada'), and dharruhu aqrab (his harm is closer) is the predicate of the subject (mubtada' wa khabar), and the sentence serves as its relative clause (silah).

His saying, the Exalted: (Most wretched is the protector and most wretched is the associate): This is the answer to an implicit oath, and the lam in it is the lam of the response to an oath (jawabiyyah). The oath and its response constitute the predicate of man. This means: The disbeliever will stand on the Day of Resurrection, raising his voice in screaming, when he sees the harm caused to him by his deity and his entry into the Fire on account of it, while seeing no trace of the benefit he had expected from it. Thus, the harm of him who causes him harm is closer in realization than his benefit. Truly, most wretched is he who is taken as a supporter, and most wretched is he who is associated and mingled with. How much more so when the object is pure harm, devoid of benefit entirely? In this, there is an exaggeration in disparaging the state of the idol and an intensification in its condemnation, which is not hidden. This is the secret behind preferring man (who/the one who) over ma (what/that which), and the use of the superlative form. This interpretation of the syntax was chosen by al-Sajawandi, and the meaning derived from it is free of ambiguity.

Jar Allah also adopted this view. It has been permitted that "he calls" here is a repetition of the previous "he calls" for emphasis, and as a precursor to what follows: the clarification of the evil state of his deity, following the clarification of the evil state of his worship by His saying: (That is the far-reaching error). It is as if it were said from His side—exalted is He—after mentioning the disbeliever's worship of that which neither harms nor benefits him: "He calls upon that." Then it is said: "For he whose harm is closer through his being worshipped is closer than his benefit through his being an intercessor." "Truly, most wretched is the protector, etc." There is no contradiction here either; for the harm that was previously negated is that which occurs through direct action, while the harm established here is that which occurs through causation. Likewise, the benefit negated previously is that which is real, while the benefit established here is that which is expected. It is said that for this establishment, man was used, because harm and benefit by their nature proceed from rational beings.

In Irshad al-'Aql al-Salim, it is stated that the word and the superlative form are directed based on the assumption that this is a report from His side—exalted is He—regarding the evil state of the disbelievers' deity, for the purpose of mockery. I see no obstacle to it being, as in the first estimation, for the purpose of exaggerating the vilification of the idol's state and intensifying its condemnation.

Ibn Hisham objected to this view, stating that it entails claiming a departure from the origin twice: for the origin is the absence of emphasis, and the origin is that the emphasized (mu'akkad) should not be separated from its emphasis (tawkid), especially in verbal emphasis. Al-Akhfash said: "He calls" (yad'u) is in the sense of "he says," and the lam is for inception, and man is a relative noun acting as a subject (mubtada') whose relative clause is the sentence following it, and its predicate is omitted, estimated as "a god" or "my god," and the sentence is reported as speech. This was objected to on the grounds that its meaning is corrupt, because this speech from the disbeliever would only occur in this world, and in this world, he does not believe that the harm of the idols is closer than their benefit.

It was answered that the intent is to deny their claim of the idols' divinity, except that Allah the Exalted expressed it with what was mentioned for the purpose of mockery. Yes, it is better to estimate the predicate as "protector," because His saying: (Most wretched is the protector and most wretched is the associate) points to it more clearly. Yet, the remoteness of this view remains apparent.

It is said that yad'u is imbued with the meaning of yaz'amu (he claims/asserts), and it is attached to the verbs of the heart (verbs of belief), which is to say with belief. The lam is an inception particle acting as a suspender (mu'allaq) for the verb, and man is a subject whose predicate is omitted, as in the previous view, and the sentence is in the position of an object for yad'u. Al-Farisi indicated this view, and what is in it is not hidden from you.

Al-Farra' said: The lam has entered in a place other than its proper one, and the estimation is: "He calls upon him whose harm is closer than his benefit." Thus, man is in the position of the object of yad'u. Abu Hayyan and others followed him, remarking that it is remote because that which is in the relative clause cannot precede the relative noun.

Ibn al-Hajib said: It is said the lam is redundant for emphasis, and man is the object of yad'u. This is baseless, for the open lam is not added between the verb and its object. However, the view of redundancy was strengthened here by the reading of ‘Abdullah (Ibn Mas’ud): "He calls upon him whose harm..." (yad'u man dharruhu) by omitting the lam.

It is said that yad'u is in the sense of "he names" (yusammi), and man is its first object, and its second object is omitted, i.e., "a god." And what is in this is not hidden from you.

It is said that yad'u does not operate on what follows it; rather, it operates on "that" (dhalika) which precedes it, which is a relative noun in the sense of "that which." This was also reported from al-Farisi. Despite its remoteness, it is only valid according to the Kufans, as they permit the demonstrative pronoun to be a relative noun unconditionally. As for the Basrans, they do not permit it except for dha (this), provided it is preceded by an interrogative like ma or man.

It is said that it operates on an omitted pronoun referring to "that" (dhalika), i.e., "he calls upon him," and the sentence is in the position of a state (hal), and the estimation is: (That is the far-reaching error) as one called upon. In this, despite its remoteness, is the fact that yad'u cannot be interpreted as "called upon" (mad'u); rather, it is interpreted as "caller" (da'iyan). The one interpreted as "called upon" is yud'a (passive voice).

It is said that yad'u is a conjunction to the first yad'u, and the conjunction particle was omitted for the purpose of enumerating the states of that waverer, the lam is redundant, and man is the object of yad'u, and it refers to a rational being. "Calling" in both places is either in the sense of expressing or in the sense of summoning. The intent is either to clarify the state of a group of them—meaning they sometimes call upon that which neither harms nor benefits, and sometimes call upon him whose harm is closer than his benefit—or to clarify the state of the gender (the category of humans) considering those beneath it—meaning among them are those who call upon what does not harm or benefit, and among them are those who call upon him whose harm is closer than his benefit. It is as you see. In summary, the best of these views is the first.