Tafsir of An-Naml 27:17

(And gathered for Solomon his hosts) meaning: his armies were collected for him from various places. (Of the jinn, mankind, and the birds): This is an explication of the hosts, as is mentioned in al-Bahr and elsewhere. It does not necessarily imply that all the jinn, all of mankind, and all the birds were gathered for him—peace be upon him—as the story of Bilqis, which follows, and the story of the hoopoe, negate this, setting aside rational consideration.

It has been narrated from some that there would come to him, from every species of bird, one [representative], which is a definitive proof that the assembly did not include all birds. It is also hardly correct to intend "all" in the case of "all," as the Imam mentioned regarding this verse; rather, the meaning is that Allah, the Exalted, made all these categories his hosts. Even if this does not require their attendance and congregation in a single location, it is sufficient that there exists mere submission, inclusion within the sphere of his administration, and obedience to him wherever they were. The story of Bilqis also negates it [the gathering of all], for it is appropriate to report this "making" [of them as his hosts] after reporting her entry, along with those who were with her, into the sphere of his administration.

The manifest [meaning] is that this hashr (gathering) was merely the assembly of armies to take them to fight those who did not enter into the bond of his obedience—peace be upon him. The claim that it was to take them to Mecca in gratitude for what he was granted success in—the building of the Bayt al-Maqdis—is contrary to the manifest meaning, though if a report regarding it were sound, it would be accepted. The collection of the aforementioned types is what befits his status, grandeur, and majesty, regardless of whether the [particle] min (of) is taken as explicative or partitive. His status—peace be upon him—as one of the believers who possessed the entire inhabited world, if we grant the validity of the report indicating that and its safety from contradiction, and that it is an explicit text for the intended meaning, does not require anything other than the entry of the inhabitants of the inhabited world into the ranks of his subjects and the sphere of his dominion. This was not instantaneous; if it is authentic, it was gradual. Some historians have mentioned that Bilqis only entered under his obedience in the twenty-fifth year of his reign, and the duration of his reign—peace be upon him—was forty years, as was the duration of his father David’s reign—peace be upon them both.

The manifest [meaning] is that the one who gathered each of these three types [did so for] individuals among them; thus, from each type, there were individuals commanded to do so and prepared for it. Do not consider this unlikely regarding birds if you are a believer in the story of the hoopoe. You are not obliged to commit to what the Imam said, that Allah the Exalted gave birds intellect in the days of Solomon—peace be upon him—but did not do so in our days. There is no harm if you say that they are in the same state today as they were that day. By their "intellect," we mean nothing but that by which they are guided to their needs. Its existence in them today, and in other animals, is something that only a stubborn denier would reject. Why should we not say that their intellects, as they are, are like the intellects of humans, as they are? Perhaps there are among them those who are guided to what many of the sons of Adam are not guided to, such as bees. By my life, if they were devoid of intellect as is said, and we assume the existence of intellect in them, I do not think they would act better after its existence than they do today while they are supposedly devoid of it. It is not necessary for every possessor of intellect to be mukallaf (burdened with religious duties); let the birds be like other possessors of intellect to whom no prophet was sent to command and forbid them. It is also permissible for them to be cognizant of their Lord and believers in Him, the Majestic and Exalted, without a prophet being sent to them. A creature might grow up on a lonely mountain peak and be a believer in its Lord, the Almighty. Furthermore, the fact that they are believers in Allah the Exalted, glorifying Him—as is the case with other animals—is something to which the manifest meanings of verses and reports testify, and we have already presented some of that; we possess nothing that necessitates its allegorical interpretation.

Some have exaggerated, claiming that they are mukallaf and that among them—and other animals—there are prophets who have special laws, and they have used [certain things] as evidence for this. The well-known view is the disbelief of those who claim that, and all jurists have explicitly stated their disbelief. The specification of the three types in the mention is manifest in that the wild beasts were not subjugated to him—peace be upon him. In a report narrated by al-Hakim from Muhammad ibn Ka‘b, there is that which is manifest in their subjugation to him—peace be upon him—as well, and we will mention it shortly, if Allah wills, but it is not to be relied upon. The precedence of the jinn is to hasten to signal the perfection of his royal power and the might of his authority from the very beginning, because the jinn are an insolent faction, a rebellious, tyrannical tribe, far removed from being gathered and subjugated. The birds were not given precedence over mankind, even though their subjugation is also more difficult and more indicative of the power of the kingdom and the might of the authority, lest [the text] separate the jinn and mankind, who are counterparts and share many rulings. It was said regarding the precedence of the jinn: the position of subjugation is not devoid of humiliation, which is appropriate for them. This is nothing, because subjugation for the prophets—peace be upon them—is an honor, for it is, in reality, for Allah the Mighty and Majestic, who subjugated everything. If it is considered in itself, then such an explanation is inappropriate for the position, and this is sufficient to reject it.

(They are being kept in check) meaning: the first of them is held back so that the last of them may join them, so they are gathered and none of them lags behind. This is due to the great number. It is also permissible that this was for the ordering of the ranks, as is customary in armies. The former is more appropriate. In it, along with the indication of the great number and the intimation of the perfection of their speed in marching, is the indication that they were being managed, not neglected, so that no one would be harmed by them. The root of al-waz’u is restraining and preventing. From this is the saying of ‘Uthman—may Allah be pleased with him—: "What the Sultan restrains is more than what the Qur’an restrains," and the saying of al-Hasan: "The judge must have a restrainer," and the poet’s saying: "And he whom his intellect and shame do not restrain, then he has no restrainer from his graying temples." The specification of holding back their first ones in mention, rather than driving their last ones, even though gathering is achieved by that as well, is because there is compassion for both groups in that. As for the first, it is so that they may rest, in general, by pausing from the march, and as for the last, it is so that they do not exhaust themselves by the speed of the march. It was said: this is because their last ones are not capable of what their first ones are capable of in terms of rapid marching. Al-Tabarani and al-Thalabi in his Masa’il narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them—that their first ones were held back for their last ones until the birds slept. Allah the Exalted knows the validity of the report. The manifest [truth] is that this waz’u [restraint/holding back] was if their marching was not by the movement of the wind in the air, and reports regarding his story—peace be upon him—are numerous.

[The author proceeds to quote various historical/extrabiblical traditions regarding the magnificence of Solomon’s court, but concludes with:]

Most of the reports regarding this matter are not to be relied upon. Therefore, you must adhere to believing in what the Qur’an has spoken and what the authentic reports have indicated. Beware of defending what has no validity from what many storytellers and historians mention, which contains heinous exaggerations, merely because they are possible matters that the power of the Almighty, the Exalted, could encompass; by doing so, you open the door to mockery of the religion, and we seek refuge in Allah the Exalted. It is not unlikely that most of what is contained in such accounts is from the fabrications of the Zindiqs (heretics), who desire by it to alienate people from the religion of Islam.