Tafsir of Ash-Shu`ara' 26:100-101

This is a logical consequence of their confession regarding the gravity of their transgression and the manifestation of their error. The intended meaning is yearning and regret over the lack of an intercessor to intercede for them regarding their current state, or an affectionate friend who is concerned for them.

They have ascended to a greater degree of degradation in their state of regret; first, by denying that they have anyone to benefit them by saving them from punishment through intercession; and second, by denying that they have anyone who cares about their plight, feels compassion for them, and empathizes with them, even if they were unable to save them.

The term "intercessors" (shafi‘in) is brought in the context of negation as a plural. Even though the rule for this plural in the sense of totality—due to the presence of the additional min—is the same as a singular without dispute, the dispute exists only when the min is not added after the negation and it is introduced over a plural, in adherence to the plural form they used in affirmative statements.

In al-Kashshaf, it is stated: "The intercessor is pluralized due to the multitude of intercessors, while the friend is singularized due to its scarcity. Do you not see that when a man is afflicted by the oppression of a tyrant, a large group of his townsfolk rises to intercede for him—even if he does not have prior acquaintance with most of them? As for the sadiq (friend) who is sincere in your love, who is concerned by what concerns you, he is rarer than the egg of the Anqa."

It is possible that the singular sadiq is intended to mean the plural, for it can be applied to a group since it carries the form of the masdar (verbal noun), unlike shafi‘. Al-Baydawi mentioned another aspect regarding the singularization of "friend": that a single sadiq strives more than many intercessors combined. The outcome is that the one, according to custom, carries the meaning of many; hence, it sufficed as it holds semantic equivalence, as it is said: "People, a thousand of them are like one, and one is like a thousand when a matter concerns us."

Some perfectionists have said that mentioning shafi‘in in the plural form is merely for the sake of the rhythmic ending (fasilah), and as for mentioning the friend as singular, it is because the context is that of the singular, and the requirement of the rhythmic ending was already achieved before it. That is as you see it.

Sa‘d Effendi said: "It is not far-fetched that the pluralization of the first and the singularization of the second is an indication that there is no difference between the two totalities." The rebuttal to this is that prioritizing a form to benefit a grammatical rule is not the habit of the glorious Quran.

What I am inclined toward is that the singular is the base form, and the plural, even if it leads to the same outcome, is used according to the tradition of what they used to say and claim in the worldly life regarding the multiplicity of intercessors. It does not harm that the negated object here is more general than the affirmed object there, in terms of its inclusion of idols, dignitaries, angels, and prophets—peace be upon them—as this is what first comes to mind.

Ibn Jarir and Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from ‘Ikrimah, from Ibn Jurayj, that the meaning is: "We have no intercessors from the people of heaven, nor an intimate friend from the people of earth."

Some have claimed that by "intercessors," they here meant the same as what they meant by "criminals" among their dignitaries and leaders, and they derived this negation from their saying: {And none misled us except the criminals}. It is as if they said: "Our leaders and dignitaries who misled us are criminals being punished like us, so they cannot strive to benefit us or intercede for us."

In al-Kashshaf: "We have no intercessors, as we see that the believers have intercessors among the angels and the prophets; nor a friend, as we see that they have friends, for there is no friendship in the Hereafter except among the believers." Allah says: {Close friends, that Day, will be enemies to each other, except for the righteous}. Or, it means: "We have no intercessors nor an intimate friend from among those we used to count as intercessors and friends," because they believed their idols were their intercessors before Allah, and they had friends among the devils of mankind.

Or, they meant that they fell into a perdition where they knew that neither intercessors nor friends could benefit them or avert [the punishment] from them; so, by their negation, they intended to negate anything related to benefit, because that which does not benefit has the status of something non-existent.

The apparent meaning of this last interpretation is that the speech is a metonymy for the severity of the situation such that no one can benefit [them] at all, even to the slightest degree—and this is a sound view. The first view can hardly be reconciled with the school of the Mu‘tazila, who do not permit intercession for salvation from the Fire after entering it, nor before it. Because the apparent meaning of their saying, "We have no intercessors as we see the believers have intercessors among the angels and prophets," is "we have no intercessors to save us from the Fire as we see the believers have intercessors... who save them from it." Al-Zamakhshari’s endorsement of this view is strange, unless one says the intention is comparison regarding the absolute concept of intercession.