Tafsir of Ash-Shu`ara' 26:210

This is linked to His saying—the Exalted—"And indeed, it is a revelation of the Lord of the worlds," and it is a refutation of the claim of the polytheists of Quraysh that Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) had a follower from the Jinn who informed him as the soothsayers are informed, and that the Quran was something cast upon him (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him). The expression used is in the form of taf'īl (tanazzalat), because if a descent had occurred [by them], it would have been through gradual eavesdropping.

Al-Hasan and Ibn al-Sumayqa' read it as al-Shayāṭūn. Abu Hatim said: "This is a mistake by Al-Hasan, or against him." Al-Nahhas said: "It is a mistake according to all grammarians." Al-Mahdawi said: "It is not permissible in Arabic." Al-Farra' said: "A mistake; the Shaykh thought it was the 'nun' that is [part of the] spelling of the word." Al-Nadr ibn Shumayl said: "If it is permissible to use the words of Al-'Ajjaj and Ru'bah as evidence, why is it not permissible to use the words of Al-Hasan and his companion as evidence? We know they would not have recited it thus unless they had heard it." Yunus ibn Habib said: "I heard a Bedouin say, 'I entered gardens (basātīn), behind which were basātūn.' I said: 'How similar this is to the recitation of Al-Hasan.'"

This reading has been justified by the fact that since its ending is like the ending of Yabrin and Filastin—and it has been said regarding them Yabrun and Filastun—the same rule was applied to it as was applied to them, so it was said: al-Shayāṭūn.

According to what is in al-Kashshāf, it would then be derived from al-shayṭūṭah, which means destruction. In al-Baḥr, it is narrated from some that if its derivation is from shāṭa (meaning to burn/scorch), there is a rationale for their recitation. It is said: the rationale is that it is the form of intensification from shayāṭ, and its plural is al-shayāṭūn, with the yā' being lightened (though it has been narrated from them with the shaddah, and others have recited it so). Some said: It is the plural of shayāṭ, the verbal noun of shāṭa like khāṭa (to sew) with khiyāṭan, as if they returned the description to the verbal noun in its meaning for intensification, and then made it plural. But all of this, as you see...

The author of al-Kashf said: "There is no way to validate this reading at all." Ibn Jinni spoke at length in validating it, then said: "In any case, al-Shayāṭūn is a mistake." Abu Hayyan does not accept that it is a mistake and says: "Al-Hasan, Ibn al-Sumayqa', and Al-A'mash recited it, and it is impossible to say they were mistaken, for they are of high status in knowledge and the transmission of the Quran." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What I hold is that once the attribution of this reading to these prominent figures is proven, it becomes necessary to justify it, for they do not recite except by transmission, just like other reciters in everything they recite according to us. The Mu'tazilah claimed that some recitations were based on personal opinion.