(Said one who had knowledge of the Book...)
The separation of this clause from what precedes it is to signal the complete disparity between the two speakers, their statements, and their respective abilities to bring the throne. It may also serve to dismiss the first speaker (the Ifrit) from any consideration.
There is disagreement regarding the identity of this speaker. The majority—including Ibn Abbas, Yazid ibn Ruman, and al-Hasan—hold that he was Asif ibn Barkhiya ibn Sham’iya ibn Minkil, whose mother was Batura, of the Children of Israel. According to the most well-known account, he was Solomon’s vizier. Majma' al-Bayan adds that he was his vizier and the son of his sister, and that he was a saintly man who knew the Greatest Name of Allah. Others say he was his scribe.
Ibn Abi Hatim records from Mujahid that he was a man named Istum, and some say Isturus. Ibn Abi Hatim also records from Zuhayr ibn Muhammad that he was a man called Dhu al-Nur. From Ibn Lahi’ah, it is recorded that he was al-Khidr (peace be upon him). Qatada says his name was Milikha, while others say Malikh, Tumlikha, or Hud. A group maintains he was Dabba ibn Udd, the ancestor of the Dabba tribe of the Arabs; he was a righteous man who served Solomon and commanded a portion of his cavalry. Al-Nakha’i says he was Gabriel (peace be upon him), and it is also said he was another angel whom Allah supported Solomon with. Al-Jubba’i says it was Solomon himself.
The reasoning for the latter view is clear, as the sentence would then be a narrative introduction, as if asked: "What did Solomon say when the Ifrit said that?" And the response is: "He said, etc." The phrasing in the Noble Quran serves to indicate the nobility of knowledge, showing this miracle occurred because of it. Under this interpretation, the address "I will bring it to you before your glance returns to you" is directed toward the Ifrit. Solomon did not bring it himself initially; rather, he questioned his people ("Which of you will bring me her throne?") and then said what he said to demonstrate that he could command what the Ifrit of the Jinn could not, let alone others. Specifying the address to the Ifrit is because he was the one who claimed the ability to bring it from among them. The notion that the address applies to everyone—as in "that is more likely to prevent you from deviating"—is not apparent in relation to what was mentioned.
The Imam preferred this opinion, arguing it is more plausible for several reasons:
- The relative pronoun (alladhi) in the language refers to a person identified by the contents of the silah (relative clause) known to the addressee. The person known to have knowledge of the Book is Solomon, and previous verses in this surah support this. Thus, it is mandatory to intend him and direct the expression to him. Although Asif shares in the silah, Solomon is more perfect in it, as he is a Prophet and more learned in the Book than his community.
- Bringing the throne in that brief moment is a high degree; if it were achieved by one of his followers while he himself did not, it would imply a superiority of the follower over him, which is not permissible.
- If he required a follower to bring it, it would imply a deficiency in his stature in the eyes of the people.
- The literal meaning of his statement later, "This is by the grace of my Lord," implies that this miracle was manifested by Allah through his prayer. (This view is subject to debate).
Some objected to this view, arguing that the address "I will bring it to you" rejects it, for the proper phrasing would be: "I will bring it to you before your glance returns to the person," for example. This has already been refuted. Another objection is that the context should have been "So when it was brought," rather than "So when he saw it." It was answered that his statement was to indicate that he had no power or strength in the matter himself.
Perhaps it is more apparent that the speaker was one of his followers, and it does not follow that Solomon was incapable of bringing it himself. It is the custom of kings to assign tasks to their subjects that they themselves are capable of performing. Let this case be governed by this custom. The purpose is fulfilled by the statement—which is the prayer—and does not require physical labor or exhaustion.
In Fusus al-Hikam, it is mentioned that this occurred at the hands of one of Solomon’s companions so that Solomon would appear greater in the eyes of those present. Al-Qaysari said: "Solomon was the Pole of his time, a master of affairs, and a vicegerent over the world. Asif was his vizier and was perfect. Miracles rarely emanate from the Poles and vicegerents themselves, but rather from their heirs and successors, due to their commitment to perfect servitude and their characterization by total poverty [before Allah]. They do not act for their own sake in anything. Among the favors of Allah upon them is that He provides them with the companionship of trustworthy scholars who carry their burdens and execute their rulings."
What is in Fusus is closer to the way of our kind, though even that is not free of discussion among the people of that path. Majma' al-Bayan records through al-Ayyashi that Musa ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Musa met Yahya ibn Aktham and asked him questions, among them: "Was Solomon in need of Asif's knowledge?" He did not answer until he asked his brother, Ali ibn Muhammad, who said: "Write to him: Solomon was not incapable of knowing what Asif knew; however, he desired to show his community—both Jinn and mankind—that [Asif] was the proof after him. That was part of Solomon's knowledge, which he deposited with Asif by the command of Allah. Allah gave him understanding of it so that there would be no disagreement regarding his [Asif's] vicegerency, just as Solomon was given understanding during the life of David so that his vicegerency would be recognized afterward, to confirm the proof upon the creation." This is as you see.
"The Book" refers to the generic category comprising all revealed scriptures. Some say it refers to the Preserved Tablet; however, that this is the intended meaning for all the previous views regarding the relative pronoun is very far-fetched. Others say it refers to the Book sent to Bilqis, and the "min" (from) is for origination. The indefiniteness of "knowledge" is for magnification, hinting that it was a unique, unprecedented knowledge. It is said this knowledge was the Greatest Name of Allah, which, if He is called upon by it, He answers. The scholar prayed using it, and his purpose was achieved; it is said to be Ya Hayy, Ya Qayyum (O Living, O Sustaining), Ya Dha al-Jalal wa al-Ikram (O Possessor of Majesty and Honor), Allah al-Rahman (Allah, the Compassionate), or in Hebrew, Ahya Sharahya.
Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim record from al-Zuhri that he prayed: "O our God and the God of everything, one God, there is no god but You, bring me her throne." The "glance" is the movement of the eyelids, opening them to look at something, then used metaphorically for the gaze itself. Its "return" is its cessation by the closing of the eyelids. Because this is a natural event not dependent on intent, the "return" was preferred. The meaning is: "I will bring it to you before your eyelids close after you open them."
It is said there is no need to consider the metaphor, for the intent is before the return of the movement of the eyelids by their closing after opening. This is subject to scrutiny; the discourse follows its literal meaning and is not an allegory for speed. It has been narrated that Asif said to Solomon: "Extend your eyes until your glance reaches its limit." He extended his gaze, looking toward the right, and before his glance returned, the throne was brought before him.
Others say it is an allegory, so it is possible it was brought in the time it takes for a star to rise one or two degrees. Ibn Jubayr and Qatada said the "glance" refers to the "glanced at," meaning the one upon whom the look falls. Thus, the meaning is: "Before the one upon whom your gaze falls reaches you in the furthest distance you can see when you look before you." This is as you see.
"So when he saw it settled before him," meaning when Solomon saw the throne stationary before him, established in the state it was in, he said—welcoming the blessing with gratitude, following the path of his brothers, the Prophets, and the sincere servants of Allah—"This," meaning the bringing of the throne or its presence before me in this short time (or, according to others, the ability to bring it via a medium or by oneself), "is from the grace of my Lord," meaning His bestowal upon me without any intrinsic merit of my own, nor any act of mine that would make it incumbent upon Him, may He be exalted.
There is an ellipsis in the speech: "So he brought it to him, and he saw it. So when he saw it, etc." The ellipsis is omitted to denote the perfection of its manifestation and its lack of need to be reported, and to signal the perfect speed of its arrival, as if nothing occurred between the promise and his seeing it at all. Qualifying his seeing it with its "settlement" before him emphasizes this meaning, implying there was no interval of the act of bringing between them; it was as if it had always been there. "Settled" is in the accusative as a state, and "before him" relates to it. This is a "specific mode" as we have indicated, and thus it was appropriate to mention it. Some thought it was a "general mode," so mentioning it was problematic for them, given the majority of grammarians state that a circumstantial qualifier relating to a general mode must be omitted. Some, therefore, insisted the qualifier relates to "saw," not to "settled." Others, like Ibn Malik, argue that such omission is the rule, but it may appear, as in this verse and the line of poetry: "For you is glory... for your master is glory, and if one is humiliated, you are present in the midst of humiliation." You know that it is possible to consider what is in the verse as a specific mode, just as in the verse.
There is disagreement regarding how the throne arrived until he saw it settled. Ibn Abi Shaybah, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Asakir record from Ibn Abbas that the throne of the Queen of Sheba did not pass between heaven and earth, but the earth split for it, and it traveled beneath the earth until it appeared before Solomon. Mujahid and Ibn Sabit concurred. It is also said it descended before Solomon from the sky. Solomon was then in the land of Sham, as is said, having returned from Sana'a; between it and Ma'rib (the throne's location) is about a two-month journey. If he was in Sana'a, the distance is about three days. Regardless, crossing a long distance in a short time is possible, and the Truthful one has informed of its occurrence, so it must be accepted. Pious and wicked alike agree that what is greater than this has occurred: the sun crossing thousands of leagues in the blink of an eye, even though the proportion of Bilqis's throne to the earth is like a grain of sand to a mountain.
The Great Shaykh (may his secret be sanctified) said that Asif acted upon the essence of the throne, causing its non-existence in its location and bringing it into existence before Solomon, from where no one would perceive it except one who knows the "new creation" that occurs in every instant. The time of its existence was the same as the time of its non-existence, and each of them was in an instant. The speech of Asif was the very act in time, for the speech of the perfect one is in the position of "Be" from Allah. The issue of the throne's arrival is among the most difficult, except to one who knows what we mentioned regarding bringing into existence and causing non-existence. The throne did not traverse a distance, the earth was not folded for it, nor was it pierced. This is a summary.
What he mentioned regarding non-existence and existence is permissible in my view—even if I do not subscribe to the renewal of substances, only the renewal of accidents according to the Ash'ari—yet it is contrary to the apparent meaning of the verse. It has been used as evidence for the reality of miracles. You know that possibility renders evidence void.
Solomon explained this grace of Allah upon him by saying, "That He may test me," meaning: "That He may treat me with the treatment of one being tested," i.e., tried, "whether I am grateful" for that by recognizing it as the pure grace of Allah, without any power from my side or strength, and fulfilling His right, "or whether I am ungrateful" by finding a place for myself in the affair or falling short in fulfilling its requirements, as is the habit of other blessings poured upon servants.
Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Jarir record from Ibn Jurayj that the meaning is: "That He may test me, will I be grateful if I am brought the throne, or ungrateful if I see that one who is lower than me in the world is more knowledgeable than me?" A similar report is cited in al-Bahr from Ibn Asakir, but the apparent meaning is its lack of authenticity. Further from the truth is what Ibn Abi Hatim records from al-Suddi, who said that when he saw it settled before him, he panicked and said: "A man other than me is more capable of what is with Allah than I am." Perhaps the truth is to be certain of the falsehood of that.
The clause "whether I am grateful," etc., is in the position of the accusative as the second object of the verb "test," and it is suspended by the hamza, treating it like "knowledge" even if it is not synonymous. It is also said that its position is the accusative as a substitute for the "ya" (in liyabluwani). "And whoever is grateful, he is only grateful for the benefit of his own soul," meaning for its benefit, because he binds the bounty with it, attracts more, sheds the burden of the obligation, and rids himself of the stigma of ingratitude. "And whoever is ungrateful," meaning does not show gratitude, "then my Lord is Self-Sufficient" of his gratitude, "Generous" by not hastening the punishment and by bestowing favors even without gratitude.
The apparent meaning is that the "man" (whoever) is conditional, and the sentence accompanied by the "fa" is the answer to the condition. It is permitted that the answer is omitted, indicated by its counterpart that preceded it, with the mentioned being its substitute: "Whoever is ungrateful, then [the harm of his ingratitude is] upon his own soul." This was challenged on the grounds that it does not suit the description "Generous." It is also permitted that "man" is relative, and the "fa" entered the predicate because it contains the meaning of a condition.
