Tafsir of Al-Hajj 22:18

His saying, Exalted is He: "Do you not see that Allah, to Him bows in prostration whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth..." to the end of the verse. This is an explanation of what necessitates the aforementioned separation regarding the actions of the groups, while pointing toward its manner, and that it occurs by way of punishment, reward, honoring, and debasing. It is also permissible that this is an illumination of the fact that He, Exalted is He, is a Witness over everything. It has been said: It is a reproach for the disagreement of the disbelievers and a dismissing of it as far-fetched due to the necessity of a repellent. The intent by "seeing" is knowledge, and the address is to everyone for whom that is possible. The intent by "prostration" (sajdah) is the entry of things under His subjection—Exalted is He—His will, and their receptivity to what He brings about in them.

The apparent meaning of the speech of the human being is that it is a literal meaning of prostration. In Mufradat al-Raghib, it is stated: "Prostration in its origin is submission and humiliation. It has been made an expression for humiliation to Allah and worshipping Him, and it is general to humans, animals, and inanimate objects. This is of two types: a prostration by choice, which belongs to the human, by which he deserves reward; and a prostration by subjection (taskhir), which belongs to the human and other than him among animals and plants." In the Shari'ah, it is restricted to the well-known pillar of prayer, and what follows its path, such as the prostration of recitation and the prostration of gratitude.

Some have mentioned that just as it is restricted in the Shari'ah to this, it is restricted in the convention of language to it as well. Ibn Kamal said: Its reality, according to what is stipulated in al-Mujmal, is the placing of the head. The second eminent scholar said: Its reality is placing the forehead, not the head, such that if one placed the head from the side of the nape, he would not be a prostrator. Based on these two opinions and their definitions, it has been said that "prostration" here is a metaphor for entering under the subjection of Allah—Exalted is He—and submission to His will. It is permissible that it is a metaphor for the indication of the state of things, through their humility and need, toward their Maker and His greatness. The aspect of illumination based on this is evident, as is the reproach for the disagreement.

"Whoever" (man) is either specific to sentient beings or general to them and others by way of domination (taghlib), which is more appropriate as it is more suitable for the context, since it provides the inclusion of the ruling for everything within them, whether by way of residing within them or being parts of them. Thus, His saying, "and the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the mountains, and the trees, and the living creatures" is a singling out for mention due to their fame and the apparent improbability of that occurring from them at first glance, as has been said. Or, it is because they have been worshipped other than Allah, either considering their person or their genus. The sun was worshipped by Himyar; the moon by Kinanah; the star Aldebaran by Tamim; Sirius by Lakhm and Quraysh; the Pleiades by Tayy; Mercury by Asad; and the star al-Mirzam by Rabi'ah. Most Arabs worshipped idols carved from mountains, and Ghatafan worshipped al-'Uzza, which is a samurah tree—the samur are well-known trees. Some people worshipped the cow.

Al-Zuhri and Ibn Wathab read "al-dawab" with the softening of the ba. Ibn Jinni, in al-Muhtasab, restricted this reading to al-Zuhri and said: I do not know anyone else who softened it. It is rare and weak in both analogy and transmission, because the meeting of two quiescent letters is contrary to its rule, and its excuse is the dislike of doubling; hence they said zalta for zalalta, and they said jan with softening, and he mentioned many parallels for it.

His saying, "and many of the people": It has been said that it is in the nominative case due to an implied verb indicated by the mention, meaning: "And many people bow in prostration to Him with the well-known prostration of obedience." This was objected to on the basis that it is explicitly stated in al-Mughni that the condition for a verbal indication of an omission is that it must be identical in wording and meaning, or in meaning only, not just wording. Therefore, "Zayd is a striker, and 'Amr [is likewise]" is not permissible if the predicate of 'Amr is omitted as "striker" from "striking the earth" (i.e., traveling), while the mentioned one is in its well-known sense. Al-Khafaji replied that what was mentioned is not accepted, because of what the grammarians mentioned: that the implied may be necessary for the mentioned, such as "I struck Zayd" (i.e., I insulted Zayd). It is not shared like the mentioned example unless there is compatibility between them; so it is valid if they are united in wording and are of the shared type, and there is a necessary relationship between them that indicates the implied—which is why the mentioned example was not valid. Some parsed it as conjoined to what was mentioned before it, making "prostration" in relation to it the well-known prostration, while in what preceded it, it is the entry under subjection or the indication of the greatness of the Maker.

This has been used as evidence for the permissibility of using a shared word in both its meanings, or using a word in its literal and metaphorical senses. The reply is what you have known: it is not permissible to conjoin and make "prostration" in all instances mean "entering under subjection" or "indicating greatness," because that is general to all people, so it would not be appropriate to mention "many." That which is not general is only the prostration in the well-known sense, so the mention of "many" is beneficial if it is intended that among them are those who are not characterized by this, and it is indeed so.

What has been said—that it is permissible for the specification of "many" to be for the intent of general prostration to indicate their honor and praise—is worth nothing, for how can there be praise when the non-sentient have been conjoined with them, such as the living creatures? Ibn Kamal said: Those who permit applying a shared word in one usage to more than one meaning hold on to His saying, "Do you not see that Allah, to Him bows in prostration whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth..." based on the fact that the intent of prostration attributed to the non-sentient is submission, because the well-known prostration is impossible for them, and that which is attributed to them is the well-known one, not submission, because it is inclusive of all and not restricted to the "many." There is no hold for them in this, because both of these reasonings are subject to denial. As for the first, because the reality of prostration is the placing of the head, and there is no impossibility in attributing it to the non-sentient; there is no need to prove the reality of a head in all of them because the [principle of] domination (taghlib) is permissible and common. As for the second, the disbelievers—especially the arrogant among them—have no share in submission, because the intent of it is obedience according to what was sent down in their regard as a command, whether it was prescriptive or constitutive, in the manner the command was issued. To posit another verb in this context is from the narrowness of argumentation, as is not hidden from the owners of intelligence.

In this is the statement permitting the conjunction to both meanings of prostration: the placing of the head and the submission. The benefit of specifying "many" in the second sense is clear. It is not hidden that what is understood from the reliable books of language is that prostration is a linguistic reality for submission absolutely, and that what he mentioned regarding the talk of taghlib is contrary to the apparent; and likewise is the carrying of submission to what he mentioned. He, may Allah have mercy on him, took both meanings from al-Tawdih, and he dropped from it what was superfluous. What he claimed to be from the "narrowness of argumentation" is what the majority of the people have taken. According to this, "of the people" is an adjective for "many." It was objected that, in that case, the well-known prostration of obedience is not restricted to "many" of the people, for many of the jinn are also characterized by it, and the claim that they are not accountable is contrary to the more correct opinion. Yes, it could be said that they were not ordered to prostrate at the time the verse was revealed, and the one who claims that must provide evidence. The statement that it is permissible to mean by "people" what includes the jinn, as it is applied to them according to the application of the terms "group" and "men" to them, is nothing.

Some have replied to that by saying: The implied "prostrates" is included in "seeing," and they said: The intent by it is knowledge, and expressing it with "seeing" is to signal the manifestation of the known; and the manifestation of prostration—in the sense of entering under subjection—in the things attributed to it is something that has no veil over it; likewise its manifestation in the sense of the well-known prostration in many of the people. As for the jinn, it is not like that, so he described the "many" as being "of the people." This was followed up by: The address in "Do you not see" is to whoever for whom that is possible, and there is no veil in the manifestation of the matter of prostration absolutely in relation to him. It was responded that the responder's intent is that the prostration of the jinn is not manifest in the essence of the matter, and with disregard for the addressee—whoever he may be—the manifestation of the entry of the things mentioned first under subjection is contrary to the prostration of many people, for it is manifest—the manifestation of that in the essence of the matter—so he specified the "many" by their being "of the people" so that what enters into the scope of "seeing" is from a single side of manifestation in the essence of the matter.

It is said: The context requires increasing the number of those seeing for what is mentioned in the scope of vision, and specification is more appropriate for that; thus he specified the "many" by their being "of the people." All of this is as you see. It is better to say: The specification of "many of the people" with the attribution of prostration in the well-known sense to them—according to the opinion that many of the jinn are likewise—is for their praise. This does not fall under the objection that passed, because non-sentient beings were not conjoined with them in this prostration. Consider this. It is said: "Many" is in the nominative as an inception, its predicate omitted, trusting in the indication of the predicate of its two parts for it, such as "the right of reward." The speech implies the abundance of both groups. The first is better due to its encouragement of prostration and obedience to the Righteous, the Worshipped.

It is permissible that "many" is an inception and "of the people" is its predicate, and the definition in it is for the reality and the genus, meaning: And many of the people who are the people in reality—they are the righteous, the pious. Al-Raghib said: "People" (al-nas) may be used and the virtuous are intended, not those whom the name "people" covers metaphorically. That is when the meaning of humanity is considered, which is the existence of the intellect, the remembrance, and all the faculties specific to it; for every thing that lacks its specific action hardly deserves its name. The specifier for the indefinite inception is that it is an adjective of an omitted word in reality, on the basis that the contrasting of opposites is among the specifiers when you say "honored men and debased men," because it is a detail of a summary, so it is described by estimation; and because each of the two opposites is described by its difference from the other, so this enters into the semantic description.

And that "many" is an inception and "of the people" is its adjective, and His saying, "and many of the people" is conjoined to it, and His saying, "upon whom the punishment is deserved"—meaning it has been established and confirmed—is the predicate. The speech is on the level of your saying: "Count for me a thousand and a thousand," meaning many thousands; and such is common in their speech. Thus it implies the abundance of those upon whom the punishment is deserved from the people. These two views are far-fetched. He said in al-Bahr: They are weak.

The apparent [meaning] is that the second "many" is an inception and the sentence after it is its predicate, and it has been set in the place of "and do not prostrate," as if it were said: "And many of the people prostrate, and many of them do not prostrate." It is not hidden what is in that setting of intimidation against abandoning prostration and obedience. It is not hidden that the lack of explicit restriction of the "many" by being "of the people" strengthens the claim that the restriction in what preceded was for praise, and taking the lack of restriction to include "many of the many" of the jinn is very contrary to the apparent.

It is permissible that it is conjoined to "whoever," and prostration is with one of the two meanings previously mentioned, and the sentence "is deserved," etc., is its adjective. A description is implied for the first "many" by the evidence of its opposite, meaning: "The reward is deserved for him." And "of the people" is an adjective for it as well. It is not hidden what is in that. It was read "huqqa" (with the damma of the ha) and "haqqan," meaning "the punishment is deserved upon him truly." So it is a source (masdar) confirming the content of the sentence. "And whoever Allah debases"—by the fact that Allah—Exalted is He—has written misery upon him, according to what his essence was prepared for of evil—and "from" is the direct object omitted for "debases"—"there is no one to honor him"—he will honor him with happiness.

Ibn Abi 'Ablah read "mukrim" with a fathah on the ra as a mim-prefixed source (masdar mimiy), as in al-Qamus, meaning "there is no honoring for him." It is said it is a passive participle in the meaning of a source, and there is no need to commit to it. It is said it is permissible for it to remain as it is common in this form—that it is a passive participle—and the meaning is "there is no one to honor him and intercede for him to be saved from debasement." It is not hidden how far-fetched that is. "Indeed, Allah does what He wills" of things, among which are honoring and debasing. This is more appropriate than restricting what is in the context to them.