Tafsir of An-Naml 27:18

(Until, when they came upon the valley of the ants...) The word hatta (until) is of the type with which speech is initiated, yet it acts as a limit (ghayah) for what precedes it. Here, it is a limit for the progression implied by His saying: (they were kept in check)—as if it were said: "They marched until they came to..." etc.

"The valley of the ants" is a valley in the land of Syria with many ants, according to what has been narrated from Qatadah and Muqatil. Ka'b said: "It is the valley of al-Sudayr in the land of Ta'if." Others said: "It is a valley at the furthest part of Yemen," and it is known among the Arabs and mentioned in their poetry. It has also been said: "It is a valley inhabited by the jinn, and the ants are their mounts," though this, in my view, is not worth considering.

The reason the verb "came" (aty) is connected to it with the particle ‘ala (upon), despite it usually taking the verb directly or with the particle ila (to), is either because their arrival was from a high vantage point, so it was used to indicate that, as the poet al-Mutanabbi said: “And how greatly you have exceeded your station while rising; and how greatly the stars have drawn near to you.” (This is when he intends the stars being above). Alternatively, the meaning of aty upon a thing refers to traversing it and reaching its end, as in their saying: "He came upon (ata ‘ala) the matter," meaning he finished it and reached its end. Furthermore, "coming upon it" in the sense of traversing it is a metaphor for the intent to do so; otherwise, there would be no reason for the warning against being crushed (hatm) that follows, for it would make no sense after the valley—where the ants are—has already been traversed and passed.

It is apparent from both interpretations that they came upon it on foot. It is possible they were traveling in the air and intended to descend there, so the ant perceived their descent and warned the others.

(An ant said...) This is the response to idha (when). It is apparent that it emitted a sound from which Solomon (peace be upon him) understood the meaning: (O you ants, enter your dwellings, that Solomon and his soldiers may not crush you while they perceive not.)

This is similar to how the Prophet (peace be upon him) understood from the sounds of birds what he understood. It does not undermine this that the Prophet was only taught the "speech of the birds," because either: 1) These ants were among the "winged creatures," as Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from al-Sha'bi, and ‘Abd al-Razzaq, ‘Abd ibn Humayd, and Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Qatadah—and how often have we seen an ant with two wings that flies with them! The fact that this does not typically classify them as "birds" is a matter for consideration. 2) Or, this understanding was granted to him only this once and was not a constant occurrence, unlike the speech of birds. There is nothing in the previous verse or the reports that negates the possibility of him understanding the intent of animals other than birds without it being a constant habit.

Ibn Bahr said: "It spoke as a miracle for Solomon, just as the lizard and the shoulder of the sheep spoke to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)." Muqatil said: "He (Solomon) heard her statement from a distance of three miles." If this is so, it implies she perceived their descent from that distance, and Solomon hearing her from that distance is not far-fetched, as it has come in the reports that the wind carries sound to him, or that Allah, the Exalted, granted him at that time a sanctified power by which he heard it. However, the ant's perception from that distance is remote, and the tick is the one famous among the Arabs for sensing from afar, to the point they made it a proverb. You know that there is no harm in denying the validity of this report.

Others said: "He did not hear a sound at all; rather, he understood what was in the soul of the ant through inspiration from Allah." Al-Kalbi said: "An angel informed him of it." That he did not hear a sound is suggested by the saying of Jarir: “If you had been given the speech of the Hakal, you would know the speech of the ants,” for by Hakal he meant that which does not make a sound.

Some said: "When it saw them heading toward the valley, it fled from them fearing they would be crushed, so others followed it, and it let out a cry that alerted the ants in its presence, and they followed it." This was likened to the addressing and advising of rational beings, and therefore they were treated as such: she was made the speaker, and the other ants were the ones addressed. Thus, the speech is cast in the form of a representative metaphor (isti'arah tamthiliyyah), or it could be a concealed metaphor (isti'arah makniyyah). You know that there is no necessity for this.

Whoever studies the behavior of ants does not find it far-fetched that they possess a rational soul, for they store in summer what they eat in winter, and they split the grains they store into two halves for fear that dew might hit them and they sprout—except for coriander and lentils, which it cuts into four pieces because, like the others, they would sprout if only split in two. This and its like require deductive universal knowledge, which requires a rational soul. The Sheikh of the Masters (Shaykh al-Ishraq) has proven the existence of a rational soul for all animals, and the outward appearance of the verses and authentic reports necessitate this, as you have heard in ancient and modern times. So there is no need for you to say: "It is possible that Allah created speech in the ant at that time, and intellect and understanding in the others, but today ants do not possess that."

Furthermore, it should be known that it is apparent the ant's knowledge that the one arriving was Solomon and his soldiers was by inspiration from Him, the Almighty and Majestic—much like the lizard’s knowledge of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) when it spoke to him and bore witness to his message. It is also apparent that it was like other ants in physique, and today there exists what is close to a fly, called the "Persian ant." Some storytellers have exaggerated its size, but there is no valid basis for that.

In some reports, it is said that it was lame and its name was Takhiah; it is also said it was Jurmi. In al-Bahr, it is stated: "It is disputed what its proper name is. I wish I knew who assigned a specific name to it: the sons of Adam or the ants themselves?"

Whoever holds that animals possess rational souls does not deny that they have names assigned by one to another, not in words like our words, but through sounds performed in a specific manner. Perhaps it includes various elements, each of which stands in place of a letter from the letters familiar to us. If someone with a sanctified soul wants to translate their speech, they translate it into what we know. It brings this closer to your understanding that some of the speech of the Franks and their ilk—we hear nothing of it except as we hear the sounds of birds and the like, but when it is translated into what we know, it appears to contain familiar letters.

The ta in "ant" (namlah) is for the singular, so the feminine conjugation of the verb is in consideration of the outward appearance of the feminine ending; there is no evidence in that that the ant was female. This was stated by some.

It is reported that Qatadah entered Kufa and people gathered around him. He said: "Ask whatever you wish." Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) was present, and he was a young boy. He said: "Ask him about the ant of Solomon: was it a male or a female?" They asked him, and he was silenced. Abu Hanifah said: "It was female." They asked: "How do you know?" He replied: "From the Book of Allah, which is His saying: (An ant said...). If it were male, the Almighty would have said: qala namlah (the masculine verb)."

This is because "ant" is like "pigeon" or "sheep" in that it applies to both male and female; one distinguishes between them with a sign, such as saying "male pigeon" or "female pigeon." This is how it is in al-Kashshaf. Ibn al-Munir followed it up by saying: "I do not know if I should be amazed at him or at Abu Hanifah, if this is truly recorded from him. This is because 'ant,' like 'pigeon' and 'sheep,' applies to both male and female because it is a generic noun... so the word is feminine in form, but its meaning is potential. It is possible to feminize it due to its form even if it refers to a male... so the verse qalat namlah (the feminine verb) considers the feminine form, while the meaning allows for both masculine and feminine equally."

Ibn al-Hajib (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Feminine in form is that which has no masculine counterpart in animals, like zulmah (darkness) or ‘ayn (eye)... and there is no difference whether it is an animal or otherwise, like dajajah (chicken) or hamamah (pigeon). If a masculine is intended, it is still feminine in form. Therefore, the saying of those who claim the ant in the verse is female because of the ta in qalat is weak, for it could be a male in reality, and the arrival of the ta is like its arrival in a verb that is feminine in form, such as 'The darkness came' (ja'at al-zulmah)."

Some scholars of Transoxiana answered and said: "By my life, Ibn al-Hajib has been overly harsh here... and his objection 'the arrival of the ta is like its arrival in...' is nothing, because if it were permissible to use the feminine ta in a verb merely for the form of the feminine in a true masculine agent, it should be permissible to say 'Talhah came to me' (ja'atni Talhah), even though that is not permissible."

In summary, the most cautious position is to say that this story is not authentic. Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) was who you know him to be, even if he was a young boy at that time, and Qatadah ibn Di'amah al-Sadusi, by the consensus of those who know the men, was deeply learned in Arabic, so it is highly unlikely that what was mentioned occurred between them. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

Al-Hatmu means breaking, and what is intended by it is destruction. The prohibition in the outward sense is for Solomon and his soldiers, but in reality, it is a prohibition by way of metonymy for the ants to move, as the crushing is not within their power. It is like your saying: "Let me not see you here," which is outwardly a prohibition for the speaker to see the listener, but the intent is to prohibit the listener from being in a position where the speaker sees him. The sentence is an isti'naf (commencement) or a badal ishtimal (substitution of inclusion) from the sentence (Enter your dwellings).

The sentence (while they perceive not) is a state (hal) from the combination of the two combined subjects (Solomon and his soldiers), or it may be a state from just the soldiers. In either case, the limitation of the crushing to the state of not perceiving their location—implying that if they had perceived them, they would not have crushed them—indicates the extreme politeness of the ant toward Solomon and his soldiers. Would that those who attack the companions of the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with him) would follow her example, refrain from such, and improve their manners!