Tafsir of Al-Hajj 22:73

(O mankind, a similitude is set forth): meaning, a strange state or a marvelous, eloquent story has been clarified for you, worthy of being called a "similitude" that circulates among lands and ages. The expression for its clarification is in the past tense to signify the certainty of its occurrence. The term mathal (similitude) originally means "likeness," then it was specialized for that which is likened to its subject of discourse, thus becoming a reality, and then it was metaphorically applied to what has been mentioned. It is said that mathal is used in its literal sense, and daraba (set forth) means "to make," i.e., "He has made for Allah the Exalted a likeness in the entitlement to worship." This has been narrated from al-Akhfash, and the discourse connects to His saying: "And they worship other than Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority."

(So listen to it): meaning, listen to the similitude itself with deliberation and reflection, or listen for its sake to what I am saying. Thus, His saying: (Indeed, those you call upon besides Allah...) to the end of the verse, is a clarification and explanation of the similitude according to the first view, and a justification for the falsehood of their setting up their false deities as likenesses to Allah—Exalted is His Majesty—in the entitlement to worship according to the second. Some have made it—according to what we mentioned and what was narrated from al-Akhfash—an explanation: as for the first, it is for the similitude itself in its metaphorical sense; as for the second, it is for the condition of the similitude in its literal sense, for the meaning would be: "The disbelievers have made a likeness for Allah, so listen to its condition and what is said regarding it." The truth, which none but a stubborn person would deny, is that interpreting the verse in the manner narrated involves turning away from the most apparent meaning.

It is apparent that the address in (O mankind) is for all those held accountable, yet the address in (you call upon) is specifically for the disbelievers. Some suggest that the address in both instances is for the disbelievers, and the evidence for the specificity of the first is the second. It is also said that it is for the believers in the first instance—He, the Exalted, called them to show them the error of the disbelievers—and it is said that it is general in both, occurring in the second as in your saying: "You, O Banu Tamim, killed such-and-such a person," though there is investigation into this.

Al-Hasan, Ya’qub, Harun, al-Khaffaf, and Mahbub narrated from Abu ‘Amr [the reading]: (yad’una) with a ya (y-prefix), in the active voice, as in the reading of the majority. Al-Yamani and Musa al-Sawari read: (yud’una) also with a ya, in the passive voice. The pronoun referring back to the relative pronoun (the object) in both previous readings is omitted.

(They will never create a fly): meaning, they are unable to create it, despite its smallness and insignificance. The preceding context indicates that the intention is the negation of ability, along with His saying: (even if they gather together for it)—i.e., to create it—for custom dictates that one does not say: "The Zayds will never carry such-and-such, even if they gather to carry it," unless the intention is to negate the ability to carry. It is said that this meaning comes from the negation with lan, as it is useful for emphatic negation, thus indicating an incompatibility between the negated—which is creation—and that from which it is negated—which is the false deities—thereby signifying their inability to do it. It is apparent that this also does not dispense with the assistance of the context.

You know that there is disagreement regarding lan providing emphatic negation. Al-Zamakhshari went to the view that it does provide that, and that the emphasis of the negation here is to indicate that the creation of a fly by them is impossible. He stated in his Unmudhaj that it signifies perpetuity. The majority—and Abu Hayyan said this is the correct view—held that it does not provide that; it is, in their view, akin to la for the negation of the future when used absolutely, without evidence for emphasis or perpetuity. If that is understood, it is from the outside, by way of contextual clues. It may be understood as such even with the negation being with la; if it were said here "they will not create a fly, even if they gathered for it," that would be understood. They say regarding everything al-Zamakhshari uses as evidence for his claim: "The significance in it is from the outside," and they do not concede that it is from lan, and he will never be able to prove it. The argument in his favor—that "he will do" is in the power of an absolute, general [future], and "he will never do" is its negation, so it is in the power of the absolute perpetual—cannot be sustained without lan providing perpetuity, as is not hidden. It is as if what led al-Zamakhshari into neglect—leading him to say what he said, relying on what does not stand as evidence—was the intensity of his partisanship for his false school of thought and his invalid belief. We ask Allah the Exalted to protect us from abandonment.

Al-dhubab (the fly) is a generic noun, and it is pluralized as adhubbah and dhubban, with a kasra on the dhal in both. It was narrated in al-Bahr that it also has a damma in dhubban. It is derived from al-dhabb, meaning driving away or repelling, or from al-dhabb meaning oscillation, i.e., going and returning; this is more appropriate for the state of a fly due to its oscillation, to the point it was said it is derived from dhabb-aba (it drove away, it returned).

The response to law (if) is omitted, due to the preceding text indicating it. The sentence is coordinated with another conditional [clause] that is omitted, trusting in the indication of this one, meaning: "If they did not gather and cooperate on it, they would not create it, and if they gathered and cooperated on it, they would not create it." Both are in the position of a hal (circumstantial accusative), as if it were said: "They will not create a fly under any circumstances."

Some say: The waw is for the hal (circumstantial), and (even if they gather for it) with its response is the state. Others say: Law here does not need a response because it has shed the meaning of conditionality and has become purely for the indication of hypothesis and estimation. The meaning is: "They will not create a fly whose gathering [against it] is hypothesized."

(And if the fly should steal anything from them): an explanation of their inability regarding another matter besides creation, meaning: If the fly takes something from them, (they cannot recover it from it), meaning they are unable to recover it from it, despite its extreme weakness. It is apparent that istanqadha has the same meaning as naqadha. In the verse is a portrayal of their ignorance in associating with Allah the Exalted—the One capable of all possibilities, the Unique in bringing into existence all beings—weaklings who are unable to create the least and most abased of living things, even if they gather for it, nor recover what it snatches from them; that which is not hidden. Although the verse was revealed regarding idols—for they used to, as narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), smear them with saffron, put honey on their heads, and lock them in, so the fly would enter through the small windows and eat it—and it is said they would inflate them with types of perfume so the fly would go for that, the ruling is general for all false deities.

(Weak are the seeker and the sought.) This is a tailing (concluding remark) to what has been said, whether as an information or an expression of amazement. The "seeker" is the worshiper of other than Allah, and the "sought" is the deities, as narrated from al-Suddi and al-Dahhak. The state of the worshiper being a "seeker" is due to his supplication to it and his belief in its benefit; his "weakness" is due to his seeking benefit from other than its source. The state of the other being "sought" is apparent, as is its "weakness." It is said the "seeker" is the fly, seeking what it steals from the deities, and the "sought" is the deities, in the sense of the one from whom the item is stolen.

It was narrated by Ibn Marduyah, Ibn Jarir, and Ibn al-Mundhir from Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), and al-Zamakhshari chose it, that the "seeker" is the idols and the "sought" is the fly. In this tailing, there is then an implication of equality, and a confirmation that the seeker is weaker, because it was preceded by [the fact] that this lesser creature is the one stealing, and that one is a seeker who has failed in his quest. When He made the stealing "stolen from them" and treated them as rational beings, He affirmed a "seeking" for them; and when He explained that they are weaker than the basest of animals, He drew attention to the place of mockery in that. Some people chose the first [view] because it is more appropriate for the context, as it is for exposing their ignorance and disparaging their deities, so it was appropriate [to refer to] them and their deities by this tailing.