Tafsir of Al-Hajj 22:32

"That [is the command], and whoever honors the symbols of Allah..."

(That) i.e., the matter is that, or comply with that. (And whoever honors the symbols of Allah) i.e., the sacrificial camels (al-budn), as narrated from Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, and a group. They are the plural of sha‘irah or shi‘arah, meaning a sign, like al-shi‘ar. They were applied to sacrificial camels because they are among the signs of Hajj or the signs of obedience to the Exalted and His guidance. Al-Raghib said: Because they are marked (tash‘ur), meaning they are known to be bloodied by a sha‘irah—an iron [blade] with which it is marked. The aspect of the annexation in all three views is clear.

Honoring them is to choose those that are fine, fat, and high-priced. It is narrated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) offered a hundred camels, among which was the camel of Abu Jahl, which had a gold nose-ring. From Umar, it is narrated that he offered a fine, high-bred camel that was requested of him for three hundred dinars, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) asked him to sell it and buy camels with its price, but he forbade him from that and said: "Rather, offer it." Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) used to lead the camels draped in Qibati cloth, then he would give their meat and their drapes in charity. Zayd bin Aslam said: The symbols are six: Safa, Marwa, the camels, the pebbles (Jamarat), the Sacred Mosque, Arafat, and the Corner (al-Rukn). Honoring them is the perfection of what is performed through them. Ibn Umar, Al-Hasan, Malik, and Ibn Zayd said: The symbols are all the places of Hajj: Mina, Arafat, Muzdalifah, Safa, Marwa, the House, and other than that, which is similar to the view of Zayd.

It has been said: They are the laws (shara’i) of His religion, and honoring them is adhering to them. The majority are upon the first view, which is more consistent with what follows.

(And) "whoever" (man) is either conditional or relative. Upon both assumptions, there must be, in the saying of the Exalted (For indeed, it is from the piety of hearts), a pronoun referring back to it, or what stands in its place.

It was said: The estimation is "for indeed, the honoring of them..." The "honoring" (ta‘zim) is a verbal noun annexed to its object, and it must have an agent, which is none other than a pronoun returning to "whoever" (man). It is as if it were said: "For indeed, his honoring of them..." "From" (min) can also be for causality, i.e., "For indeed, the honoring of them is for the sake of the piety of hearts." It cannot be for the beginning of the end (starting point), i.e., "For indeed, the honoring of them arises from the piety of hearts." The estimation of this annexed part is mandatory, according to what has been said, in that the symbols themselves cannot be predicates of "being from piety," in any sense of "from." Al-Zamakhshari said: The estimation is "for indeed, the honoring of them is among the actions of those possessing the piety of hearts." Thus, these annexed parts were omitted, and the meaning is not sound except by estimating them, because there must be a referent from the reply to "whoever" (man) to link it.

Abu Hayyan criticized this by saying that what he estimated is devoid of a referent back to "whoever." Therefore, when a group followed his path in estimating the annexed parts, it was said the estimation is: "For indeed, the honoring of them is from it, [being] from the actions of..." or "For indeed, the honoring of them is from the actions of those possessing the piety of hearts among them," bringing a genitive pronoun returning to "whoever" at the end of the sentence or in the middle. Some who followed this did not estimate "from it" nor "among them," but committed to making the lam in "hearts" (al-qulub) a substitute for the annexed pronoun according to the Kufic school for connection, i.e., "the piety of their hearts." Al-Damamini made the link in Al-Zamakhshari's estimation the agent of the omitted verbal noun for the sake of understanding the meaning, so what he estimated is not devoid of a referent to "whoever," as Abu Hayyan claimed, for the omitted that is understood is equivalent to the mentioned.

The author of al-Kashf said in defending him: He also intended that, based on what he estimated, the generality of "those possessing the piety of hearts" stands in place of the pronoun. Thus, the estimation of "from it" as Al-Baydawi did is not the [best] way. The author of al-Taqrib objected to the estimation of the latter two annexed parts—namely "actions" and "those possessing"—that they are only needed if "from" is made to signify partition (tab‘id). But if it is made to signify initiation (ibtida’), then it is not needed, for the meaning then is "for indeed, the honoring of them arises from the piety of hearts." This is one of the two aspects you heard earlier. The author of al-Kashf did not approve of this, saying: Estimating the ta‘zim is essential because the meaning is that "honoring" is a category of piety, and one of its greatest categories, not that the "honoring" arises from someone who possesses piety. From this, it appears that assuming the "honoring" arises from the piety of hearts—and the objection that Al-Zamakhshari’s statement is only sound if carried upon partition—is not as it should be. Furthermore, if he then estimates "from the piety of their hearts" according to the Kufic doctrine, or "from the piety of hearts among them," the breach widens for the one mending it. Then, if "piety" is considered to cover both actions and abstentions according to the legal convention, then "honoring" is definitely a part of it. And if it is specific to abstentions, then the origin of "honoring" from it is not apparent except through metaphor. End quote.

It was objected that his claim—that the meaning is that "honoring" is a category of piety, rather than that "honoring" emanates from one who possesses piety—is a claim without witness, and that the indication that it is one of the greatest categories of piety, as he mentioned, does not appear. And that the statement regarding the lack of need for ellipsis upon the assumption that honoring is a part of piety is a reconciliation the opponent would not be satisfied with. And that the correctness of the speech based on metaphor does not make Al-Zamakhshari’s statement "it does not sound" valid.

He was countered that this is invalid. As for the first: the context is for inciting the honoring of the symbols, which necessitates counting it as part of piety, indeed, one of its greatest [parts]. Its being "arising from" it does not necessitate it being "of" it, but rather it might even suggest the opposite. As for the second: the indication that the "greatestness" is understood from the context is like saying: "This is from the actions of the righteous," "Forgiveness is from the traits of the noble," and "Oppression is from the traits of the base," as the taste testifies. As for the third: he did not claim no need for ellipsis upon the assumption that honoring is a part of piety, but says the link is the generality, as he said first. As for the fourth: the correctness of speech without estimation based on metaphor, because it is hidden, is akin to a mistake, as there is no indicator for it, and partition is what is immediately understood from it. Thus, there is no dust [of criticism] except upon the view of the objector.

I say: It is not hidden that the less the estimation, the more preferred it is. Therefore, the saying of one who said: "The estimation is 'for indeed, the honoring of them is from the piety of hearts'" is more preferred than the saying of one who said: "The estimation is 'for indeed, the honoring of them is from the actions of those possessing the piety of hearts,'" and "from" in that is for partition. What the context necessitates of honoring the matter of this "honoring" is understood from making it a part of the piety of hearts, based on the fact that qualifying piety with "hearts" is to signal that piety is of two types: the piety of hearts, and it is intended by it the true, sincere piety that characterizes the true believer; and the piety of limbs, and it is intended by it the superficial, false piety that characterizes the hypocrite, whose limbs often show humility while his heart is heedless and distracted. The structure is the most similar of structures to their saying: "Forgiveness is from the traits of the noble." Whenever it is understood from that that forgiveness is one of the greatest categories of traits, let it be understood from this that honoring is one of the greatest categories of piety, and differentiation is mere caprice.

Perhaps the annexation being for this signal is more preferred than it being because the hearts are the source of piety and corruption and the commander of them, so contemplate.

Some people did not deem the estimation of "honoring" necessary and referred the pronoun in "for indeed, it" (fa-innaha) back to the sanctity (hurmah) or the trait, as it was said similarly in his saying (peace be upon him): "Whoever performs ablution on Friday, it is good and excellent," or back to a feminine verbal noun understood from "honors" (yu‘azzim), i.e., "the honoring" (al-ta‘zimah). This was objected to by saying that the verbal noun contained in the verb is not feminized unless its feminization is well-known, like "mercy" (rahmah), and this is not so. He contemplated this. Indeed, the consideration of this is something that the sound taste does not relish. From this, one knows the status of considering the [plural] "honors" in the plural form. It has been said against it: It implies that one "honoring" is not from piety, and it is not repelled by the fact that the concept (mafhum) is not considered, or that this is from the correspondence of the plural with the plural, as is not hidden.

If the Kufic school is considered in the lam of "hearts," there is no need in the verse for ellipsis at all. Some of the people of perfection went to the view that the retribution is omitted, estimated as "then they are truly pious," due to the indication of the causality standing in its place. This was objected to by saying that ellipsis is contrary to the original, and what was mentioned is suitable for the retribution considering the notification and information, as in its peers. You know that this estimation draws to the mind, and the like is much in the Glorious Book. It was recited "the hearts" (al-qulub) in the nominative as the agent of the verbal noun which is "piety" (taqwa).

The Shia and those who follow their path used the verse as evidence for the legitimacy of honoring the graves of the Imams and other righteous people by lighting lamps on them, hanging gold and silver artifacts, and the like, by which they have surpassed the idolaters. It is not hidden what is in that.