Tafsir of An-Naml 27:30

As for the emphasis in the words of the Almighty: “Indeed, it is from Solomon, and indeed, it is ‘In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful,’” it is because it occurs in response to an implied question. It is as if it were said: "From whom is this letter, and what is its content?" Thus, it was said: "Indeed, it is from Solomon," and so on. It is appropriate to use emphasis with inna (indeed) when answering a question, and I see no difference in that between an explicit question or an implied one.

From what has been mentioned, it is known that the first pronoun in “Indeed, it is” (innahu) refers to the letter, and the second pronoun refers to the content, even if it is not explicitly stated. There is nothing in the verse indicating that he—peace be upon him—placed his name before the name of Allah, the Exalted. That she knew it was from Solomon could be due to his name being written after [the Basmala]. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from Yazid ibn Ruman that he said: "Solomon wrote, 'In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful, from Solomon, son of David, to the Queen of Sheba and her people: Do not be haughty...'" It is also possible that it was written on the outside of the letter, while the inside of the letter began with "In the name of Allah," etc.

It has been said: The first pronoun in “Indeed, it is” refers to the heading, and that he—peace be upon him—headed the letter with his name, placing it first, writing: "From Solomon, [followed by] 'In the name of Allah'..." Abu Hayyan favored this, then said: He—peace be upon him—presented his name due to the possibility that she might react in a way befitting a disbeliever, and thus his name would serve as a shield for the name of Allah, the Exalted. This is as you see it.

The writing of the Basmala at the beginning of letters is something that became the tradition of our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, after the revelation of this verse, without dispute. As for before it, it has been said that his letters—peace and blessings be upon him—did not begin with it. Abd al-Razzaq, Ibn al-Mundhir, and others recorded from al-Sha'bi that he said: "The people of the pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyyah) used to write, 'In Your name, O Allah.' The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, wrote—or what he wrote—'In Your name, O Allah,' until [the verse] 'In the name of Allah is its course and its anchorage' was revealed, so he wrote, 'In the name of Allah.' Then, 'Call upon Allah or call upon the Most Merciful' was revealed, so he wrote, 'In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful.' Then, the verse of Surah al-Naml ('Indeed, it is from Solomon') was revealed, so he wrote, 'In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.'"

Abu Dawud recorded in his Marasil from Abu Malik that he said: "The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to write, 'In Your name, O Allah,' but when the verse of 'Indeed, it is from Solomon' was revealed, he wrote, 'In the name of Allah,' etc." Similar accounts were narrated from Maymun ibn Mihran and Qatadah. To me, this is hardly consistent with the view that the Basmala was revealed before this verse, and this [latter] view is one that should not be contradicted. Jalal al-Suyuti said in his Itqan: "There is disagreement over what was first revealed of the Quran, with several views: the first, which is the correct one, is 'Recite in the name of your Lord,' and it is supported by several reports, including the report of the two Sheikhs in the beginning of revelation, which is famous. The second is 'O you who are wrapped in your clothing,' the third is Surah al-Fatiha, and the fourth is the Basmala." He then said: "In my view, this is not a separate view in itself, for it is a necessity of the revelation of a Surah that the Basmala is revealed with it; thus, it is the first verse revealed absolutely."

This strengthens what we have said; for if the Basmala were the first verse revealed, it would be the opener to the Book of Allah, the Exalted. If it is so, it would be appropriate for his status, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, to open his letters with it, just as Allah, the Exalted, opened His Book with it and made it the first of what was revealed from it. As for the claim that it was revealed beforehand but he—peace and blessings be upon him—did not know of its legitimacy in the beginnings of letters and messages until this verse was revealed—which contains the account of Solomon—this is a claim no one would make except one who is ignorant of his standing, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

Some of the prominent scholars mentioned that when it is written in letters and messages, it is better to write it on a line by itself. In Adab al-Katib by al-Suli, it is mentioned that they prefer for the writer to begin the Basmala from the margin of the paper, then write the salutation aligned with it, and they consider it ugly for the text to extend past the Basmala by a small amount; they do not write it in the center [if] the salutation extends beyond it. What was mentioned about writing the salutation after it was not the practice in the early period; rather, the practice was to write "From so-and-so to so-and-so." Placing the name of the sender before the recipient is legitimate, even if the former is of lower status and the latter of higher. It is in al-Bahr from Anas: "There was no one more honored than the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and his companions, when they wrote a letter to him, would begin with themselves." Abu al-Layth said in his Bustan: "If one were to begin with the recipient, it is permissible, for the Ummah has reached a consensus upon it and they have practiced it."

The apparent meaning of the verse is that the Basmala is not among the exclusive characteristics [of Solomon]. Some said: It is among them, but in the Arabic wording and the specific order, while what was in the letter of Solomon—peace be upon him—was not in the Arabic wording, and it was translated for us as such; this is not far-fetched.

Abdullah recited wa innahu min Sulayman with an added waw. Abu Hayyan explained this as being a waw that conjoins the sentence following it to the sentence “Indeed, I am thrown...” It is also said it is a waw of state (hal), and the sentence is a state. Ikrimah and Ibn Abi 'Ablah recited annahu min Sulayman wa annahu with the hamza of anna opened in both places. This is explained as an appositive (substitution) for kitab (a letter), meaning: "It was thrown to me that it is [a letter] from Solomon..." or that the estimation is "because it is..." as if it explains the nobility of the letter by the fact that it is from Solomon and that it is sourced with the name of Allah, the Exalted. Ubayy recited anna min Sulayman wa anna bismi-llah with the hamza opened and the nun vowelless (sukun), which is explained as anna being explanatory (mufassira), because a sentence containing the meaning of speech preceded it, or that it is the "lightened" form of the "heavy" anna.