Tafsir of Al-Furqan 25:7-8

(And they said, "What is the matter with this Messenger, he eats food...") The verse was revealed regarding a group of the disbelievers of Quraysh. Ibn Abi Ishaq, Ibn Jarir, and Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that Utbah and Shaybah, the sons of Rabi'ah, Abu Sufyan bin Harb, an-Nadr bin al-Harith, Abu al-Bakhtari, al-Aswad bin al-Muttalib, Zam'ah bin al-Aswad, al-Walid bin al-Mughirah, Abu Jahl bin Hisham, Abdullah bin Abi Umayyah, Umayyah bin Khalaf, al-Asi bin Wa'il, Nabih bin al-Hajjaj, and Munabbih bin al-Hajjaj gathered together. Some said to others, "Send for Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and speak to him and dispute with him so that you may have a valid excuse against him." They sent word to him, saying, "The nobles of your people have gathered to speak with you." So he (peace be upon him) came to them, and they said, "O Muhammad, we have sent for you to hold you accountable. If you have brought this speech seeking wealth, we will collect it for you from our wealth. If you seek honor, we will make you our leader. And if you desire kingship, we will make you king." The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "I am not as you say. I have not brought you what I have brought seeking your wealth, nor honor among you, nor kingship over you. Rather, Allah Almighty has sent me to you as a Messenger, revealed to me a Book, and commanded me to be a bearer of glad tidings and a warner. I have delivered to you the message of my Lord and given you sincere advice. If you accept what I have brought, it is your portion in this world and the Hereafter; and if you reject it, I shall wait patiently for the command of Allah Almighty until Allah, the Exalted, judges between me and you." They said, "O Muhammad, if you will not accept anything we have offered you, then ask your Lord to send an angel with you to verify what you say and to speak on your behalf, and ask Him to provide you with gardens and palaces of gold and silver so that you might be independent of what you seek, for you walk in the marketplaces and seek a livelihood as we do, so that we may know your merit and your status with your Lord, if you are a Messenger as you claim." The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "I will not do that. I am not one to ask his Lord for this, nor was I sent to you with this. Rather, Allah Almighty sent me as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner." Then Allah Almighty revealed regarding their statement: (And they said, "What is the matter with this Messenger...")

This narrative is presented here to recount their transgression specifically concerning the one to whom the Criterion (al-Furqan) was revealed, following the account of their transgression concerning that which was revealed. Ma (What) is an interrogative particle denoting denial of the situation and its negation, occupying a nominative position as an ibtida' (subject), and the prepositional phrase following it relates to an implied predicate. The letter lam is separated from the pronoun hadha (this) in the Imam’s script, which is an followed tradition. By using the demonstrative pronoun and the term "Messenger," they intended belittlement and mockery. The sentence (he eats food) is a circumstantial clause (hal) qualifying "the Messenger," and the governing agent is the meaning of "stability" contained in the prepositional phrase. It is permissible that the prepositional phrase signifies: "What thing and what cause is there for this person—who claims to be a Messenger—to be in a state of eating food as we eat (and walking in the marketplaces) for the sake of seeking provision as we do?" This applies the denial and negation to the cause only, while the caused effect—the content of the circumstantial clause—is acknowledged. Some have permitted treating the sentence as an independent, new beginning (isti'naf), but the former is what we have mentioned. Their intent was to treat as impossible a message that contradicted the eating of food and the seeking of a livelihood, according to their assumptions. It is as if they said: "If what he claims is true, why is his state not different from ours?" This is nothing but a manifestation of their blindness, the feebleness of their intellects, and the limitation of their vision to the sensory. For the distinction of the Messengers (peace be upon them) from others is not through physical matters, but rather through spiritual matters—that is, the perfection with which Allah Almighty has fashioned them, as indicated by His saying: "Say, 'I am only a man like you, to whom has been revealed that your god is one God.'" The verse is used as evidence for the permissibility of scholars and people of religion and righteousness entering the marketplaces, contrary to those who disliked it for them.

(Or why has an angel not been sent down to him to be a warner with him? Or why is a treasure not cast to him, or he does not have a garden from which to eat?) This is a descent from what preceded, as if they said: "If there is no difference between us and him in eating and living, then why is there not with him someone who differs in these two, acting as his assistant in warning? And if that is not found, why does he not differ from us in one of them—namely, the seeking of a livelihood—by having a treasure cast down to him from the heavens, through which he might be supported, thus ending his need for living entirely? And if that is not found, then there is at least the removal of need, in part, by bringing a garden from whose produce he might live, as the wealthy and affluent do." Az-Zamakshari mentioned that by their statement ("What is the matter with this Messenger, he eats food and walks in the marketplaces"), they meant that he should have been an angel. Then they descended from his being an angel to being accompanied by an angel to assist him. Then they descended from that to his being supported by a treasure, and then they descended and became satisfied with his having a garden from which he could eat and be provided for. It is said that only the final sentence is a descent from them, and what preceded is an isti'naf (new beginning) as an answer to the question: "How does his state (peace be upon him) differ from yours, and by what is that achieved and he distinguished from you?" The nature of this is clear. The accusative case of yakun (to be) is due to its being the answer to the exhortation (tahdid). It was also read as fayakunu in the nominative, which Abu Mu'adh recorded and explained as being coordinated with unzila, for if a present tense verb had occupied its place, it would be nominative—for you would say initially la-la yunzilu (in the nominative). The verbs yulqa and takunu are coordinated with it, and both are in the nominative. Alternatively, it is the answer to the exhortation with the implication of "he is," meaning "then he would be." In such a structure, it is not permissible to make yulqa and takunu accusative by coordinating them with the accusative yakun, because they are in the status of that which is requested by the exhortation, not in the status of the answer. Perhaps the use of the past tense first—even though the default for la-la (when used for exhortation or suggestion) is that it precedes the present tense—is because the sending down of an angel, while ignoring the question of whether he (peace be upon him) would be a warner with him, is an established matter for which he (peace be upon him) never ceased to claim, so they did not formulate the speech according to what he claimed (even if it was not accepted by them), and there is a type of mockery in it from them—may Allah Almighty destroy them—unlike the casting of the treasure and the acquisition of the garden. Perhaps the use of the present tense in those two, even though it is the default, points to continuous recurrence, as if they were requesting something that would not run out. Ibn Hisham mentioned in al-Mughni from al-Harawi that la-la comes for interrogation, and he cited two examples, one of which is His saying (Why has an angel not been sent down to him). He followed this up by noting that this is a meaning not mentioned by most grammarians. The apparent meaning is that in the aforementioned example, it is like in His saying (Why did they not bring four witnesses for it?), where it is for rebuke and expression of regret, in which case it is restricted to the past. It is not hidden that if he meant by His saying (Why has an angel not been sent down to him) what occurred here, then the matter of it being for rebuke and regret is extremely subtle; so contemplate this. Qatadah and al-A'mash read wa-yakuna with a ya (at the end of the letters). Zayd bin Ali, Hamzah, al-Kisa'i, Ibn Wathab, Talhah, and al-A'mash read na'kulu (we eat) with a nun, attributing the verb to the pronoun of the disbelievers who said what was mentioned. (And the wrongdoers said) they are the initial speakers, but the noun was used in place of their pronoun to record against them their wrongdoing in what they said, because it was misguidance that exceeded the limits of error, alongside the fact that it involved attributing to him (peace be upon him) that which both reason and revelation testify he is free from, or attributing to him that which is not fit to be a basis for what they claim, namely the negation of the message. It is said: It is possible the intended meaning is "the perfect ones in wrongdoing among them." In any case, the intent is that they said to the believers: (You are following) i.e., you are not following (nothing but a man bewitched).

(Bewitched), so that his intellect was overcome. Thus, the intent of sihr (magic) is that by which the intellect is disrupted. It is said: "His sihr (lung) was afflicted," meaning his lung was disturbed, so his state became disordered, just as it is said mar'us, meaning his head was afflicted. It is said: "He is bewitched by food and drink," meaning he is nourished; or "he is one with a sihr (lung)," treating it as a noun of relation. They meant that he (peace be upon him) is a human like them. It is said: "One with sihr" (with a kasra on the sin), meaning they intended—may Allah destroy them—that he is a sorcerer (sahir). The most apparent reading, according to what is in al-Bahr, is the first interpretation, and it is mentioned that it is the most appropriate to their situation.