Tafsir of An-Naml 27:22

The apparent meaning is that the pronoun refers to the hoopoe (hudhud), and ba‘īd is an adjective denoting time. The discourse is an explanation of an implied matter, as if it were said: "What happened regarding his absence after the threat?" Thus, it was said: He stayed not far, meaning he stayed for a period of time that was not prolonged. He described the time of his stay in this manner to indicate his haste out of fear of Solomon, peace be upon him, so that it might be known how the birds were subjected to him.

It is said that the pronoun refers to Solomon, but this is as you can see [implausible]. It is also said that ba‘īd is an adjective of place, meaning the hoopoe stayed in a place not far from Solomon. However, regarding it as an adjective of time is preferable. It is narrated that when Solomon, peace be upon him, landed, the hoopoe circled and saw another hoopoe—its name, according to some, being ‘Afīr—perched, so he descended toward him. He described to him Solomon’s kingdom and everything that had been subjected to him, and in turn, his companion mentioned to him the kingdom of Bilqis. He went with him to see, and he did not return until after the afternoon ('asr).

In some traditions, it is said that when Solomon, peace be upon him, did not see him, he summoned the chief of the birds, the vulture, and asked him, but found no knowledge of the matter with him. He then said to the master of the birds, the eagle: "Bring him to me." The eagle ascended, looked, and saw him approaching, so he headed toward him. The hoopoe pleaded with him by God Almighty, saying: "By the right of God who strengthened you and gave you power over me, have mercy on me." The eagle spared him and said: "Woe to you! The Prophet of God has sworn to punish you or slaughter you." The hoopoe asked: "Did he not make an exception?" The eagle replied: "Yes, he said: Or he shall bring me a clear authority." The hoopoe said: "Then I am saved."

When he drew near to Solomon, he let down his tail and wings, dragging them on the ground in humility. When he neared him, Solomon took him by the head and pulled him toward him. The hoopoe said: "O Prophet of God, remember your standing before God Almighty." Solomon trembled and pardoned him. It is narrated from ‘Ikrimah that he pardoned him only because he was dutiful to his parents, bringing them food and feeding them because of their old age. Then Solomon asked him, and he said: “I have encompassed [in knowledge] that which you have not encompassed”—that is, in knowledge and acquaintance, and I have kept it from all its sides. He began his speech with this to stir Solomon's interest and incline him toward listening to his excuse, and to soften his heart toward accepting it, for the soul is more inclined toward an excuse that heralds a wondrous matter, and more disposed to receive what it does not know. He supported this by saying: “And I have come to you from Sheba with certain news” (22), where he explained his previous ambiguity with a type of explanation, showing him that he had been in the pursuit of an important service for him, as he had come with "news," which is significant information and a great affair.

Al-Zamakhshari said: "God Almighty inspired the hoopoe to confront Solomon with this speech, despite the favor of prophethood, wisdom, abundant sciences, and the encompassing of vast information he had been granted, as a trial for his knowledge and a reminder that among His lowest and weakest creatures is one who encompasses knowledge of what he does not, so that he might humble himself, consider his own knowledge small, and so that it might be a kindness to him in abandoning vanity—which is the temptation of scholars, and what a great temptation it is!"

This has been objected to, stating that what the hoopoe encompassed were sensible matters, the encompassing of which is not considered a virtue, nor is ignorance of them a deficiency, because their perception does not depend on anything more than mere sensation, in which the rational and the irrational are equal. Furthermore, what emanated from Solomon, peace be upon him—given the praises, thanks, and supplications narrated from him—does not befit the Divine Wisdom to alert him to abandon such [vanity].

Another objection is that his saying “I have encompassed...” is clearly the speech of one who is proud of his knowledge and belittles what his master possesses. And while knowledge of sensible matters may not be a virtue, its absence in relation to Solomon, his kingdom, and the winds casting information into his ears indicates what it indicates. In the aforementioned alert, there is a confirmation from God Almighty for him to [continue] in praise and thanks, which is consistent with his previous supplication: “My Lord, enable me to be grateful for Your favor.” Perhaps the most primary and apparent interpretation, along with this, is what was mentioned first.

Sheba (Saba’) is declined, as it is a branch of people named after their father, Saba’ ibn Yashjub ibn Ya‘rub ibn Qahtan. In a hadith by Farwah and others from the Messenger of God (may God bless him and grant him peace), Sheba was the name of a man who had ten sons; six of them went to the Yemen and four went to the Levant. The six are Himyar, Kindah, al-Azd, Ash‘ar, and Khath‘am; the four are Lakhm, Judham, ‘Amilah, and Ghassan. It is said that Sheba is a title for the father of the tribe from Qahtan, whose name was ‘Abd Shams; it is also said [his name was] ‘Amir, and he was titled as such because he was the first to capture [in war].

Ibn Kathir and Abu ‘Amr read min Saba’ with a fatha on the hamza, indeclinable, as it is the name of the tribe, then it was later named Ma’rib Sheba. Between them and San‘a is a journey of three [days]. It is permissible to intend by it—with declension—the specific place, and with indeclinability, the specific city. They cited as evidence for its declension [a verse of poetry]. Qunbul, by way of al-Nabal, read it with a sukun on the hamza, which is interpreted as treating the connection like a pause. Makki said: "The sukun in connection is remote, not chosen, and not strong." Al-A‘mash read min Saba’in with a kasra on the hamza without tanwin; Ibn Khalawayh and Ibn ‘Atiyyah narrated it from him, interpreting the kasra as a reflection of what was transmitted from him, for it was originally the name of a man or a specific place, and the tanwin was omitted to reflect what it was transferred to, as it was made a name for the tribe or city. And this is as you see.

Ibn Kathir, in one transmission, read min Saban with a tanwin on the ba’, following the pattern of rahan, making it maqsur (shortened) and declined. Abu Mu‘adh mentioned that he read min Saba’an with a sukun on the ba’ and an open hamza without tanwin, on the pattern of fa‘la, and thus it is indeclinable due to the feminine ending. Ibn Habib narrated from al-Yazidi min Saba’in with a quiescent alif, as in their saying: "They dispersed like the hands of Sheba." A group read linaba’in with an alif replacing the hamza, as if it were the reading of the one who read Saba’ with an alif, so that the two words might balance, just as they balanced in the reading of those who read them with a kasra and tanwin.

In al-Tahrir, it is stated that something like min Saba’in linaba’in is called "morphological homonymy" (tajnis al-tasrif), which is when each of the two words is unique in a letter, as in His saying: “That is because you used to rejoice on the earth without right and because you used to behave insolently” (40:75), and "The goodness of horses is tied to their forelocks."

Al-Zamakhshari said: "His saying, the Almighty: 'from Sheba with certain news' is of the type of speech that the later scholars called Badi‘ (rhetorical brilliance). It is among the beauties of speech that pertain to the word, provided that it comes naturally or is crafted by a scholar of the essence of speech, who preserves with it the correctness and soundness of meaning. And indeed, it has come here as an addition to correctness, so it is beautiful and innovative in wording and meaning. Do you not see that if one were to place 'with a report' (bi-khabar) in place of binaba’in, the meaning would be correct, but it is more correct as it came, because of the excess meaning in naba’ (news/great affair) that the description of the situation matches?" This excess is that the news is of great importance, and that naba’ means a report that has importance is what more than one linguist has stated. The apparent [view] is that this is its conventional meaning, though some claim it is not conventional—and that is baseless. The claim of the later scholars that anba’ana (he informed us) is of a lower degree than akhbarana (he told us) is invalid, because it is merely a convention of theirs.

The majority read famakutha with a damma on the kaf; the reading of ‘Asim, Abu ‘Amr in a transmission of al-Ju‘fi, Sahl, and Rawh [is with a fatha]. Ubayy read famakutha thumma qala and ‘Abdullah [read] famakutha faqala. Both readings are, in reality—according to al-Bahr—an interpretation, not a reading, because they contradict the script of the Uthmanic codex. It was read among the seven [recitations] ahu’tu with the assimilation of the ta into the ta’ while maintaining the attribute of itbaq (elevation of the tongue), and it is not a true assimilation. Ibn Muhaisin read it with true assimilation. Ibn al-Hajib objected to the first reading, saying that itbaq—which is raising the tongue to what corresponds to it of the palate to produce the sound of the letter—is not possible alongside the letter itself, which is the ta’ here, and assimilation requires replacing it with a ta’, which contradicts the existence of the former [the attribute], as it requires it to be present and not present, which is a contradiction. The truth is that something like ahu’tu with itbaq does not have assimilation, but because it was possible to articulate the second with the first without heaviness on the tongue, it was like articulating a similar letter after a similar letter, so assimilation was applied to it metaphorically. This was stated by al-Tibi. In al-Nashr, it is stated that the ta’ is assimilated into the ta’ in His saying, the Almighty: “Establish prayer at the two ends of the day” (11:114), and in al-Tashil that if the mutbaq letter is assimilated, it is permissible to maintain the itbaq or omit it. Sibawayh said: "Every Arabic speech [is so]..." Thus are the Shahabi margins, so contemplate.

In His saying, the Almighty: “I have encompassed...” etc., there is evidence by the sign of the text and inclusion that the saying of the Rafidah is false—that the Imam must not have any of the particulars hidden from him. It is not hidden that if they mean by that that the Imam must be knowledgeable in detail of the rulings of all particular incidents that could occur, and that he must have the correct answer ready for everything he is asked, then the invalidity of their claim is most apparent. ‘Ali—may God ennoble his face—was asked about a matter while he was on the pulpit of Kufah, and he said: "I do not know." The questioner said: "This place of yours is not the place of one who says 'I do not know'." The Imam—may God ennoble his face—said: "Yes, by God, this is the place of one who says 'I do not know.' As for the one who does not say that, he has no place," meaning by that God Almighty. But if they mean that he must be knowledgeable of all the legal foundations and many of the particular branches of those foundations, such that if an incident occurs and he does not know its ruling, he is capable of deriving the ruling for it in the correct manner, then that is true, and it is in the meaning of the statement of the community: "The Imam must be a mujtahid." The rest of the discussion on this station is sought from its place. His saying, the Almighty: <<...>>