Tafsir of An-Naml 27:24

"I found her and her people prostrating to the sun instead of Allah"—that is, they worship it, bypassing the worship of Allah the Exalted. Al-Hasan said: "They were Magians who worshipped lights." Others said: "They were heretics (Zindiqs)."

The manifest view is that this sentence is an initiation of speech, and that the pause is at "mighty" (aẓīm). The author of al-Murshid said: "One should not pause at 'throne' (‘arsh)." Some have claimed its permissibility, stating its meaning is "mighty in the eyes of the people." Abu Hatim and other predecessors rejected this pause, attributing ignorance to whoever states it. The statement of one who says its meaning is "their worship of the sun instead of Allah the Exalted" is a weak statement not to be relied upon, as there is nothing in the speech that points to it. In al-Kashshaf, it is mentioned that the storytellers (al-quṣṣāṣ) are the ones who pause at "throne," intending "mighty." If he had found her [the queen], he would have fled from the hoopoe’s magnifying of her throne, so he fell into a great matter, which is the alteration of the Book of Allah.

"And Shaytan made their deeds fair-seeming to them"—which are the worship of the sun and its peers among the types of disbelief and disobedience. The sentence is potentially conjoined to the sentence "they prostrate," or it is a circumstantial clause regarding the pronoun, as passed previously. "So he averted them"—the pronoun refers to the 'making fair-seeming' understood from the verb, meaning: the Shaytan's making fair-seeming averted them—"from the path"—that is, the path of truth and correctness—"and because of that, they are not guided" to it.

His saying the Exalted: "That they do not prostrate to Allah"—the lam is for causal explanation, and it is connected to "averted them" or "made fair-seeming." The fa in "so he averted them" does not necessarily have to be causative, as it may be explanatory or detailed, meaning: he averted them from that so that they would not prostrate to Allah the Exalted; or he made that fair-seeming to them so that they would not prostrate to Him the Exalted.

It is permitted that "that" (an) and what follows it is interpreted as a verbal noun (maṣdar) occurring as a substitute for "their deeds," while what is between them is an interruption, as if it were said: "And Shaytan made the non-prostration to Allah the Exalted fair-seeming to them." This is countered by the fact that it is apparent that non-prostration is counted as a deed, and that is far-fetched.

It is also permitted that it be a substitute for "the path," and the "no" (la) is redundant, like its counterpart in His saying the Exalted: "So that the People of the Scripture may not know"—as if it were said: "And he averted them from prostrating to Allah the Exalted." It is further permitted that it is based on the estimation of "to," and the "no" is likewise redundant, with the prepositional phrase attached to "they are not guided," as if it were said: "They are not guided to prostrating to Him the Exalted." You know that the redundancy of "no," even if it occurs in classical speech, is contrary to what is apparent. It is also permitted that there is no estimation, and the verbal noun is the predicate of an omitted subject, meaning: "Their habit is non-prostration." It is said: The estimation is "it is," meaning their deeds are non-prostration; therein is what passed previously.

Ibn Abbas, Abu Ja'far, al-Zuhri, al-Sulami, al-Hasan, Humayd, and al-Kisa'i recited "Ala" (ألا) with a light lam, based on it being for alerting (istiftāḥ), and "ya" being a vocative particle, with the vocative noun omitted. It is as if saying: "Oh, people, prostrate," as in his saying: Oh, Asma, you of the bracelets and the necklace. And its many parallels. The alif of "ya" and the alif of connection (waṣl) in "prostrate" (usjudū) were dropped, and the ya was written connected [to the following word], contrary to the rule. Al-Kisa'i paused at "ya" in this recitation and started with "prostrate," which is a discretionary pause. In al-Baḥr, what I hold is that such a construction appearing from the Arabs does not contain "ya" for vocative, nor is the vocative noun omitted, because the vocative noun in my view is not permitted to be omitted—for the verb operating in the vocative has been omitted, and its subject has been omitted due to its [the verb's] omission. If we were to omit the vocative noun, there would be an omission of the vocative sentence and an omission of its dependent, which is the vocative noun. If we do not omit it, it serves as evidence for the operator within it, which is the vocative sentence. The vocative particle is not an answer particle like "yes" (na‘am), "indeed" (balā), "no" (lā), or "certainly" (ajal), so that the sentence would be permitted to be omitted after it as it is permitted to be omitted after them due to the evidence of the preceding question regarding the omitted sentence. Thus, "ya" in my view, in those constructions, is a particle of attention by which the "ala" (which is for attention) is emphasized. That is permitted due to the difference between the two particles and the intention for hyperbole in emphasis. And when emphasis is found in the gathering of two different particles—in wording—that operate, as in his saying...