Tafsir of An-Naml 27:21

It is said this refers to plucking his feathers, and this has been narrated from Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, and Ibn Jurayj. The apparent meaning is all of his feathers. Yazid ibn Ruman said it means plucking his wing feathers, and Ibn Wahb said it means plucking half of his feathers. Some added that along with the plucking, he should be thrown to the ants, or left in the sun. Others said it means smearing him with tar and exposing him to the sun; others said imprisoning him in a cage, or placing him with a different species, or distancing him from the service of Sulayman (peace be upon him), or separating him from his companions, or forcing him into the service of his peers.

In al-Bahr, it is suggested that the best approach is to consider all these statements as examples of representation, and that this punishment is for the sake of discipline. It is permissible for Allah Almighty to allow this for him, seeing the benefit and utility in it, just as He, the Almighty, allowed the slaughtering of livestock and birds for food and other benefits. Since the birds were subjugated for his service, and the purpose for which they were subjugated could not be fulfilled without discipline and policy, it is permissible to allow him that which serves the interest.

In al-Iklil, Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti states that the verse may be used as evidence for the permissibility of disciplining animals and livestock by hitting them when they fall short in walking, or when they accelerate, or similar matters. It is also evidence for the permissibility of plucking the feathers of an animal for a benefit, based on the assumption that the punishment mentioned refers to plucking his feathers.

He also mentioned that Ibn al-Arabi deduced from this that punishment should be proportionate to the sin, not the body, and that the birds were held accountable, for one is not punished for omitting an action unless one has been charged with it. So, do not be heedless.

This is like an escalation from the severe to the more severe, for in slaughtering there is the draining of the cup of death. It has been said: "Everything short of death is easy."

That is, an argument that clarifies his excuse for his absence. How subtle the expression "authority" (sultan) is, rather than "proof" (hujja), because the excuse he eventually brought led to the bringing of Bilqis, who was a sovereign (sultan).

Furthermore, this clause—even if paired with an oath particle—is not, in truth, something being sworn upon; rather, what is truly being sworn upon are the first two. This has been included in their string for the sake of parallel structure. As stated in al-Kashf, this is a type of taghlib (predominance) of subtle character. The upshot of his words (peace be upon him) is that one of these things must happen—meaning, if he brings the authority, there will be no punishment or slaughter, and if he does not, one of the two will occur. The "or" (aw) in both places is for alternatives. It is said that in the first, it is for choosing between punishment and slaughter, and in the second, it is for alternating between those two and bringing the authority. As you can see, some claim that in the first it is for selection, and in the second it means "except," but this ignores the oath particle (lam).

It is permissible that all three matters are truly sworn upon, and his oath (peace be upon him) regarding the aforementioned bringing [of the hoopoe/excuse] is valid because he knew through revelation that it would happen, or it was his overwhelming assumption based on some matter that occurred to him. Otherwise, swearing upon the future action of another without knowledge or an overwhelming assumption is hardly justifiable in any law (shari'ah). This has been countered by the fact that his saying, "We shall see whether you speak the truth or were of the liars," contradicts the attainment of knowledge. The defense against this contradiction—that he might bring an argument whose truth or falsehood Sulayman (peace be upon him) does not know or assume—is not sound, as his saying "clear" (mubin) rejects it. In sum, the first mentioned view is the correct one. Reflect upon this.

Isa ibn Umar read "layatiyanna" with a stressed, fatha-vowelled nun without a ya'. In the Imam (the Uthmani Codex), it was written "la-adhbahannahu" with an additional alif between the dhal and the alif connected to the lam. Its reason is unknown, like most of what appeared in it that contradicts the known conventions of writing. Some say it is an alert that the slaughter did not occur.

Ibn Khaldun said in his Muqaddimah: "Arabic writing was at the peak of perfection and quality in Himyar, from whom Mudar learned it, although they were not proficient due to their distance from civilization. Arabic script at the beginning of Islam had not reached the peak of perfection or even the moderate stage, due to the Bedouin nature of the Arabs, their savagery, and their distance from crafts. The writing that occurred in the script of the Mus-haf by the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them)—such as the additional alif in la-adhbahannahu—contrary to the standards and rules of the art of writing known to its masters, was due to a lack of proficiency in the craft of writing. The predecessors followed that script as a form of seeking blessings (tabarruk). The attempts by some negligent people to justify that deviation in the way they have is not correct. Their motivation for this is to exonerate the Companions from deficiency, assuming that penmanship is a perfection, without realizing that penmanship is one of the civic, livelihood-related crafts. It is not a perfection with regard to them, for perfection in crafts is relative, not absolute, as its deficiency does not affect the person in their religion or similar matters; it only affects the means of livelihood. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was unlettered (ummi), and that was a perfection in his regard and in relation to his status (peace be upon him). Similar to being unlettered is his (peace be upon him) detachment from the practical crafts that are causes of livelihood and civilization. That is not considered a perfection in our regard, for he (peace be upon him) was devoted to his Lord, the Almighty, while we cooperate in worldly life. Hence, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'You are more knowledgeable about the affairs of your world.'" This is a summary of his words.

You know that the claim that the additional alif in la-adhbahannahu is due to their lack of proficiency (may Allah be pleased with them) in the craft of writing is extremely far-fetched. The explanation of this by the aforementioned point—that it is an alert that the slaughter did not occur—is equally so; otherwise, they would have added it to "I will surely punish him" (la-u'adhhibannahu), because the punishment did not occur either.

As for what he pointed to—that proficiency in writing is not a perfection for them—if he meant that beautifying the script and producing it in a proportionate form that the viewer admires and the soul inclines toward, like other admired designs, is not a perfection for them and its absence does not harm their status, then this is conceded. However, this is one thing, and what we are dealing with is another. If he meant that producing the script according to the method known to its masters—connecting what they connect, separating what they separate, writing what they write, and omitting what they omit—is not a perfection, then this is open to debate. Do you not see that a scholar is not reproached for the ugliness of his handwriting or its departure from beautiful forms and aesthetics, but is reproached for connecting what should be separated, separating what should be connected, writing what should not be written, and not writing what should be, and so on, if it is not for a specific reason?

The apparent truth is that the Companions who wrote the Quran were masters of the script, knowing what required writing and what did not, what required connection and what did not, and so forth. Yet, they deviated from the rules in some places for a wisdom. Support for this is found in what Ibn al-Anbari extracted in his book al-Takmilah from Abdullah ibn Farrukh, who said: "I said to Ibn Abbas, 'O company of Quraysh, tell me about this Arabic script: did you write it before Allah Almighty sent Muhammad (peace be upon him), collecting what is collected and separating what is separated, such as the alif, lam, and nun?' He said, 'Yes.' I said, 'From whom did you take it?' He said, 'From Harb ibn Umayyah.' I said, 'And from whom did Harb take it?' He said, 'From Abdullah ibn Jud'an.' I said, 'And from whom did Abdullah ibn Jud'an take it?' He said, 'From the people of al-Anbar.' I said, 'And from whom did the people of al-Anbar take it?' He said, 'From a traveler who came upon them from the people of Yemen.' I said, 'And from whom did that traveler take it?' He said, 'From Khuljan, the scribe of the revelation for the Prophet Hud (peace be upon him).'"

In the book Muhadarat al-Awa'il wa Musamarat al-Awakhir, it is mentioned that the first among the Companions to be famous for writing in Islam were Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, and Zayd ibn Thabit (may Allah be pleased with them). Apparently, they were not famous for this except due to their accuracy in it. The claim that these notables and the rest of the Companions did not know the contradiction of the alif in this instance to the rules of the masters of writing—and likewise all other contradictions that occurred—is something no one with the slightest etiquette and fairness would propose. Similar is the claim that it is possible that some of them knew, but left it unchanged to match the rules, or accepted the error to seek blessings.

Some have suggested that the deviation in the script that occurred among the Companions was due to a lack of skill on the part of those from whom they learned the craft of writing; thus, it was that person who deviated in such matters, and they did not know that he had deviated. So, if there is a deficiency, it lies with those from whom they learned, while they themselves had no deficiency, as they did not violate the rules they received. Their violation of rules that did not reach them and of which they had no knowledge is not considered a deficiency. This is close to what preceded, but it is free of the unattractiveness it contains.

Then, fairness after all is said and done requires admitting the strength of the claim that the deviation was due to the weakness of the craft of writing at that time, if it is true that it also occurred in matters other than the Imam (the Uthmani Codex), such as in letters and other writings. Perhaps this is not proven; otherwise, it would have been transmitted. Reflect upon this, and Allah Almighty is responsible for your guidance.