Tafsir of Al-Furqan 25:18

(They said): A resumption based on a question that arose from the narrative of the interrogation, as if it were said: "What did they say in reply?" It was said: They said: (Glory be to You). The outward form would have been to use the imperfect tense (the present/future, yaqulun) due to the mention of "they say" (yaqul) earlier, but the shift to the perfect tense (qalu) serves to indicate the certainty of this declaration of transcendence and absolution, and that this is their constant state in the worldly life. It is also said: It is to draw attention to the fact that their response with this statement is the point of interest, for it contains the rebuke and the binding argument, and thus the form signifies the certainty of its occurrence.

"Glory" (Subhan) is either to express astonishment at what was said to them—either because they are inanimate objects that have no power over anything, or because they are angels or infallible prophets, or saints protected from such things—or it is a metonymy for their being marked by His transcendence and oneness, so how could it come from them to lead His servants astray? Or, it is to be taken in its literal sense of transcendence (tanzih), and what is meant is His transcendence, Exalted is He, above having opponents. All these viewpoints constitute a summary response, though in the latter case, there is a degree of obscurity compared to the first two. His statement, Exalted is He: (It was not for us), etc., is like an affirmation of that and an elaboration upon it.

Al-Tayyibi made their saying: (Glory be to You) a preamble and a preparation for their response: (It was not for us), etc.; meaning: It was neither correct nor upright for us (to take, besides You, any protectors); meaning, protectors, with "from" (min) being redundant for emphasis of the negation. It is appropriate to add it after negation, and if the negated element is kana (to be), then this governs its complement, and the negation extends to it. The intent is to negate that they were their misleaders in the most eloquent manner, as if they said: "It was not right or upright for us to take, besides You, protectors whom we worship, because of the state we are in which is contrary to that; so how can it be conceived that we would induce others to take a protector besides You, let alone take us as protectors?"

It is also permitted that the meaning is: "It was not for us to take, besides You, followers," for just as "protector" (wali) is used for the "followed" (the master), it is used for the "follower" (the servant), from which comes "protector of Satan," meaning his followers. Abu Isa al-Aswad al-Qari recited yanbaghi (it is not appropriate) in the passive voice, and Ibn Khalawayh said: Sibawayh claimed that this is a dialect.

Abu al-Darda, Zayd ibn Thabit, Abu Raja, Nasr ibn 'Alqama, Zayd ibn Ali, his brother al-Baqir (may Allah be pleased with them both), Makhul, al-Hasan, Abu Ja'far, Hafs ibn Ubayd, al-Nakha'i, al-Sulami, Shaybah, Abu Bishr, and al-Za'farani recited (to take) in the passive voice (yuttakhadh). Al-Zamakhshari explained this by saying it is from the verb ittakhadha which takes two objects: the first object is the pronoun of the first person (the speaker) acting in place of the subject, and the second is min awliya' (some protectors), with "from" (min) being partitive, not redundant; meaning: "that they take us as some of their protectors." He did not allow it to be redundant, based on the view of al-Zajjaj that it cannot be redundant in the second object. Al-Kashf explained this by saying it is carried by the first; it spreads by its spreading and is specified likewise. He means that when it is carried, it is not meant to be true of other than it, so it spreads and is specified in the intent; thus, the example "Zayd is an animal" does not refute this, for the predicate remains on its generality despite the specificity of the subject. It is also said: He means that the difference does not befit the possibility of unity, and the example is not like this. When al-Zamakhshari based his discourse on that school of thought and committed to the partitive meaning, the difficulty arose concerning the indefiniteness of awliya', so he answered that it is to indicate specificity and their distinction by what they were distinguished by, and it is for categorization in reality.

Al-Sajawandi said: The meaning is, "It does not befit us that we should be counted as some of those to whom the name of 'protectorate' applies, let alone the whole of it," for a protector can be an object of worship, a master, a helper, or one served. Al-Zajjaj found this reading obscure according to his methodology, saying: "This reading is wrong, because you say: 'I did not take anyone as a protector' (ma ittakhadhtu min ahadin waliyan), and you cannot say: 'I did not take anyone as a protector' (ma ittakhadhtu ahadan min wali), because min only entered because it negates one in the sense of all." It is said: "There is no one standing," and "There is no man loving what harms him," and it is not said: "There is no standing of anyone," or "There is no man of a lover of what harms him." In our view, there is no justification for this at all, and if it were permissible, it would be permissible in [the verse]: wa ma minkum min ahadin 'anhu hajizin (And there is no one among you who could prevent Him) [69:47].

Al-Farra permitted this reading, though weakly, and claimed that min awliya' is the [logical] subject, and ma in yuttakhadh is the predicate, as if he made it an inversion.

The author of al-Matla' reported from the author of al-Nazm that he said: "What necessitates the invalidity of this reading is that min only enters upon an object that has no object before it, like His saying, Exalted is He: Ma kana lillahi an yattakhidha min waladin (It is not for Allah to take a child). If there is an object before it, other than it, its entry is not sound, as in the verse based on this reading." It is not hidden from you that in rushing to say it is a mistake or invalid while it is narrated from those prominent figures you heard, there is great danger; the source of that is ignorance, and its corruption is uncountable.

Ibn Jinni went to the permissibility of the redundancy of min in the second object, so it is said: "I did not take Zayd as any agent" (ma ittakhadhtu Zaydan min wakilin), meaning: "I did not take him as an agent," i.e., "any agent whatsoever, of any kind of agents." The meaning of the verse on this pattern is: "It is not for us that they should take us, besides You, as protectors," i.e., "anything upon which the name 'protectorate' applies." Some permitted nattakhidha in the famous reading to be from ittakhadha (which takes two objects), with Abu al-Baqa making min awliya' the [second] object with the redundancy of min, and min dunika the [first] object. Based on it being from [the verb] that takes one object, this would be an adverbial state (hal).

Al-Hajjaj recited: an nattakhidha min dunika awliya' (that we take besides You protectors), and `Asim said: "May the mutilated one perish! Does he not know that there is a min in it?"

His statement, Exalted is He: (But You gave them and their fathers enjoyment), etc., is a digression introduced to clarify that they themselves were the ones who went astray, after clarifying their transcendence from leading them astray in the most eloquent manner, as you have heard. He has denounced their evil deeds, for they made the causes of guidance the causes of straying; meaning: "We did not lead them astray, but You gave them and their fathers enjoyment with various types of blessings so they would know their truth and be grateful for them, but they were drowned in desires and immersed in them (until they forgot the Reminder)," meaning they became heedless of Your remembrance and belief in You, or of Your oneness, or of remembering Your blessings and the signs of Your divinity and oneness.

In al-Bahr: "The Reminder" is what people are reminded of on the tongues of the prophets, peace be upon them, or the revealed books, or the Quran. The implication of the latter is not hidden if it is said that the generality of the disbelievers and those reported about in the verse encompass the disbelievers of this nation and others. (And they were), i.e., in Your eternal knowledge which relates to things as they are in themselves, or by what will emanate from them in the future through their own choice and evil readiness of evil deeds, (a ruined people).

(Ruined): Meaning perished, on the basis that buran (ruined) is a descriptor of the doer for emphasis, and that is why it is the same for singular and plural. They cited: "Do not deny what we have done for you, and compensate us, for denial is ruinous to its doer." And the statement of Ibn al-Zab'ari: "O Messenger of the King, my tongue is mending what I have rent, since I am ruined." It is also [explained as] a plural [derived from] an effect, like 'ud for a'id. Its interpretation as "ruined" was narrated by Ibn Jarir and others from Mujahid. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that Nafi' ibn al-Azraq asked him about it, and he said: "Perished, in the dialect of Oman," and they are from Yemen. It is said: Buran means corrupted in the dialect of al-Azd; they say: "A matter is bu'r", i.e., corrupt. And "the merchandise became barat" if it was corrupted. Al-Hasan said: Buran means there is no good in them, from their saying: "Ruined land (ard bur)", meaning desolate, with no vegetation in it. It is said: Buran means blind to the truth. The sentence is an appended objection confirming the content of what preceded it, as Abu al-Su'ud said.

Al-Khafaji said: It is a state (hal) with the implication of qad (already), or coordinated with an implied verb, meaning: "They disbelieved and were ruined," or coordinated with what is before it. Al-Zamakhshari brought scandal to the Sunnis through the mentioned question and answer, saying: "There is in it a clear breaking of the statement of those who claim that Allah, Exalted is He, leads His servants astray in reality, as He says, Exalted is He, to those worshipped besides Him: 'Did you lead them astray or did they go astray by themselves?' They absolve themselves of leading them astray and seek refuge in Him from being misleaders, and they say: 'Rather, You bestowed favor upon these and their fathers without precedent, the favor of a generous, noble giver, so they made the blessing, which should have been a cause for gratitude, a cause for disbelief and forgetting the Reminder, and that was the cause of their ruin.' If the angels and messengers, peace be upon them, absolve themselves of the attribution of misguidance, which is the work of devils, and seek refuge from it, then they are, for their Lord, the Rich, the Just, more absolving and transcendent than he [the one who claims God leads them astray]. They have indeed declared Him transcendent, Exalted is He, when they attributed the favor of the blessing and the granting of enjoyment to Him, Exalted is He, and ascribed the forgetting of the Reminder and the causation of ruin to the disbelievers. Thus, they explained the metaphorical misguidance that Allah, Exalted is He, ascribed to Himself in His statement, Exalted is He: He leads astray whom He wills. If He, Exalted is He, were the misleader in reality, the ready answer would have been for them to say: 'Rather, You led them astray'."

The author of al-Fara'id answered his statement: "They absolve themselves of their misguidance; they only absolved themselves because they are the ones who deserve the punishment for their misguidance, and it was not from them, so it was incumbent upon them to say that to push away from themselves what they deserve of punishment. This is because they are responsible for what they do, while Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, is not questioned about what He does. So the deficiency would attach to them if it were proven against them, and it is not possible for it to attach to Him, Exalted is He, because He, Exalted is He, does what He wills and judges what He desires." Regarding his statement: "They have indeed declared Him transcendent when they added, etc.," [he replied] that their saying, "But You gave them... enjoyment," etc., does not contradict the attribution of misguidance to Him, Exalted is He, in reality. Also, what leads to misguidance, if it is from Him, Exalted is He, and it was known to Him, the Mighty and Majestic, that they would be led astray by it, then it would contain what [is contained] in misguidance in reality, so it would be incumbent, according to his [al-Zamakhshari's] school, that it is not permissible for Him, Exalted is He, even though they attributed it to Him, Exalted is He. Regarding his statement: "If He, Exalted is He, were the misleader in reality, the ready answer would have been 'You led them astray'," [he replied] that this is not straight, because He, Exalted is He, did not ask them except about one of two things, and what he mentioned does not serve as a reply to it; rather, it is a reply to one who says: "Who led them astray?"

Al-Kashf mentioned an answer to the latter: It is not a question about identifying who led them astray, for He, Exalted is He, is knowledgeable of it; rather, it is a question of rebuke, like "Did you say to the people?" If they had said: "You led them astray," it would not correspond. The answer is only what they answered with, as Jesus, peace be upon him, answered with his saying: Glory be to You! It is not for me... He has followed the Imam in that. He also mentioned, before this answer, that if it were said: "There is in 'You gave them and their fathers enjoyment' what indicates that He, Exalted is He, is the real agent of misguidance, and that it is not attributed to Him, Exalted is He, out of etiquette," it would be a valid point. And it should not be after the submission intended by the response of their being granted enjoyment, etc., that the meaning is the reply "You led them astray," but he turned away from it to what is in the glorious order out of etiquette, because answering with that is not required by the context, as is not hidden.

Ibn al-Munir said: The response of the interrogated ones with what was mentioned indicates their belief which conforms to what the People of Truth are upon. For the People of Truth believe that Allah, Exalted is He, even though He created the misguidance, the servants have a choice in it. In their view, every voluntary act has two attributions: if it is viewed as being created, it is attributed to Allah, Exalted is He; if it is viewed as being chosen by the servant, it is attributed to the servant. These responders attributed the forgetting—i.e., the immersion in desires from which forgetting arises—to the disbelievers because they chose it for themselves, so its attribution to them was truthful. And they attributed the cause that necessitated their forgetting and immersion in desires to Allah, Exalted is He, which is their being lured by the spreading of blessings upon them and pouring them out. Thus, there is no contradiction between the belief of the People of Truth and the content of what they said in the answer; rather, they are both in agreement on one thing.

What is in the clarification of the agreement is not hidden from scrutiny. Sometimes it is said: Since the intent of the questioning was to rebuke the polytheists, and the questioners knew that, it is not appropriate to deny it, especially if they were the angels and prophets, peace be upon them. The answer came containing that in the most perfect manner, encompassing the realization of the matter in the source of their misguidance—all that for the sake of the concern for His, Exalted is He, intent of rebuking and shaming them. That is why they did not suffice in the answer with "they went astray," but they opened with glorification, then denied from themselves the misguidance with a degree of emphasis beyond which there is no beyond. They conveyed that they went astray after the realization of what should have been a pretext for them towards guidance—from their enjoyment with various types of blessings—and that is among the most hideous of straying. They alerted to its increased hideousness above what was mentioned by expressing it as "forgetting the Reminder," then they mentioned the source of their misguidance and the fundamental origin of it by their saying: (And they were a ruined people). Whether in the sense of "they were in the realm of reality a corrupted people," and if you wish, you say "perished" or the like of what preceded, so they appeared according to what they were, for what is in the realm of reality does not change. Or in the sense of "they were in the knowledge that follows the known in itself likewise," so they appeared according to that, so that a state of change which is impossible does not occur. Its conclusion is that the source of their misguidance was the corruption of their readiness in itself without the influence of another in affecting it. This is the nature of all the essences of things in themselves, for the influence of another is only in the manner of their external existence, nothing else. To this, a group of philosophers and Sufis have gone, and Sheikh Ibrahim al-Kurani (may Allah have mercy on him) has consolidated its pillars in most of his books, and it is acceptable, so there is no harm in deriving the noble verse upon it. So reflect.