Tafsir of Luqman 31:33

(O mankind, fear your Lord and fear a Day when no father will avail his son...) This is a command regarding God-fearing (taqwa) by way of exhortation and a reminder of a Great Day, following the mention of the proofs of monotheism. Yajzi (to avail) is derived from jaza, meaning to settle a debt or fulfill an obligation. Hence, the one who demands payment is called a mutajazi; meaning: no father shall discharge or settle anything on behalf of his son.

Abu al-Simmal, ‘Amir ibn ‘Abdullah, and Abu al-Siwar read la yujzi’ with a damma on the ya’, a kasra on the za’, and a hamza at the end. Its meaning is: no father shall suffice for his son nor benefit him with anything. It is from the expression "I have sufficed for you the sufficiency of such-and-such," meaning: I have sufficed you.

‘Ikrimah read la yujza with a damma on the ya’ and a fatha on the za’, in the passive voice. In all these readings, the sentence acts as an adjective for "a Day." The pronoun returning to the qualified noun (the Day) is omitted; that is, "on that Day." This omission is either total or gradual—where the preposition is omitted, causing the verb to act transitively upon the pronoun, which is then itself omitted while in the accusative state.

His saying: (nor a son...)—if it is a conjunction connected to "father," it is the subject of the verb yajzi. His saying: (is going to avail his father anything) is in the place of an adjective describing the son. The action negated from the son is "availing" in the Hereafter, while the action affirmed for him is "availing" in the worldly life. Alternatively, "is going to avail" means "it is in his nature to avail," due to the magnitude of the father's right. Or, the intent of "will not avail" is that "nothing that he offers as payment will be accepted from him."

As for mawlud (son), it is an indefinite noun, yet it is permitted to be the subject because of the preceding negation. Al-Mahdawi was inattentive to this and denied the possibility of it being a subject. The sentence "is going to avail" is its predicate, and "anything" is the object, or it is in the accusative as a cognate accusative (masdar), acting as an adjective for an omitted masdar. On both interpretations, it is said that yajzi (in the first clause) and jazin (in the second) compete for the noun.

Regarding the choice of using what does not provide emphasis in the first clause and what does provide it in the second: Al-Zamakhshari said that since the fathers of most of the Muslims and their elders at the time of the address had died upon disbelief and the religion of the Age of Ignorance, the benefit of a disbeliever to a believer is far-fetched, thus its negation did not require emphasis. However, because the benefit of a believer to a disbeliever might occur to the imagination, the negation thereof was emphasized.

Ibn al-Munayyir critiqued this, arguing that its validity depends on the address being specific to those present at that time, while the truth is that it is general for them and for everyone to whom the title "mankind" applies. In Al-Kashf, this was refuted by stating that the two premises are corrupt. As for the second premise, it is established in the principles of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh) that "O mankind" includes those present, and others are included by inference or by way of notification; the Malikis agree. As for the first premise, even if we were to concede it, there is no doubt that the elite and elders of the believers until the end of the world are the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—and his companions, may Allah be pleased with them. It is known that most of their fathers died in disbelief; so, from where does this restriction arise?

Ibn al-Munayyir chose another view: since Allah the Exalted emphasized the recommendation regarding parents and coupled the obligation of gratitude toward them with gratitude toward Himself, and obligated the child to shield his parent from whatever harms him to the utmost of his ability, He the Exalted here cuts off the parent's delusion that the child will settle his rights on the Day of Resurrection and shield him from the horrors of that Day, just as He obligated him to do so in the world. Since the child’s availing the father is a matter of presumption—as Allah has encouraged it in the world—it was deserving of emphasized negation to remove this delusion; the reverse is not the same.

Similar to this is what the Imam said: It is in the nature of a child to avail his father due to the rights he owes him, and the child provides for him out of what he has, though that is not strictly obligatory upon him. Therefore, He the Exalted said concerning the father: "will not avail," and concerning the son: "nor is a son going to avail his father anything." Do you not see that it is said to one who sews, when sewing is not his trade: "He sews," but to one who sews when it is his trade: "He is a tailor"?

It is also said that the emphasis in the second sentence indicates that the son is more likely not to avail, because he is inferior to the father in tenderness and compassion. Since he is more deserving of this ruling, he is deserving of emphasis. My heart is not entirely at ease with this. It may be said that the Arabs used to store up children for their benefit, to repel harm from them, and to suffice their needs. Perhaps most people today are the same. Thus, it was intended to eradicate the delusion of their benefit, the repulsion of harm, and the fulfillment of needs on behalf of their fathers on the Day of Resurrection. Hence, the sentence providing the negation of this was emphasized. Among the factors of emphasis is the expression mawlud (the born one), for it is one who is born without intermediary, unlike walad (child), which is general and includes the child’s child. So, if the sentence indicates that the immediate child does not avail for his father, it is understood that anyone beyond him, such as a grandchild, is even less likely to avail for his grandfather, a fortiori.

An objection was raised that this distinction between walad and mawlud is not established by linguists. It was countered that Al-Zamakhshari and Al-Mutarrizi mentioned it, and they are sufficient as proof. Furthermore, there is debate regarding the generality of walad including grandchildren; a group holds that it is specifically for the biological child in reality. The author of Al-Maghrib said that a young one is called mawlud, even if an adult is also a mawlud, due to the proximity of the time of birth, just as one says "fresh milk" (laban halib) and "harvested fruit" (ratb jani) for the fresh among them. The reason for the emphasis upon it is that if the small one does not avail—despite not being occupied with his own affairs due to not being religiously accountable in the world—then the adult, who is occupied with himself, is even more so. And this is as you see it. Some have restricted the generality to other than the children of Muslims, due to the established ahadith regarding their intercession for their parents. This was critiqued on the grounds that intercession is not "settling a debt" (qada’), and even if it were conceded, it depends on acceptance, thus the "settling" is in truth from Him—Exalted is He. Reflect on this.

(Indeed, the promise of Allah is truth) It is said that this refers to reward and punishment, giving precedence to "promise" over "threat." Or, in its linguistic sense, it is "true," "fixed," and "realized." It does not fail. There is no dispute regarding the non-failure of the promise of reward. As for the non-failure of the threat of punishment, there is discussion. The truth is that it also does not fail. The non-punishment of those sinners who are forgiven is not a breach of the threat, because the threat in their regard was contingent upon a condition that was not mentioned, as an act of intimidation and fear. On this interpretation, the sentence is a justification for the negation of the "availing."

Others say: the intent is that "the promise of Allah regarding that Day is truth." The sentence is an independent initiation by way of explanation. As if, when it was said: "O mankind, fear a Day..." someone asked, "Will that Day happen?" It was said: "Indeed, the promise of Allah is truth," i.e., "Yes, it will inevitably occur because it was promised." It is an answer in the most eloquent manner. The Imam’s words point to this.

(So let not the worldly life deceive you) that is, let it not distract you from acts of obedience with its pleasures. (And let not the Deceiver deceive you with respect to Allah) —meaning: the Devil, as narrated from Ibn Abbas, ‘Ikrimah, Qatadah, Mujahid, and Al-Dahhak—by inducing you to commit sins by beautifying them for you, making you hope for repentance and forgiveness from Him—Exalted is He—or by telling you that sins do not harm one who, in Allah’s knowledge, was destined to die upon faith, and that abandoning them does not benefit one who was destined to die upon disbelief. According to Abu ‘Ubaydah, everything that deceives you until you disobey Allah and abandon what He commanded you is a "deceiver," be it a devil or otherwise. Al-Raghib leaned toward this, saying: The "deceiver" is everything that deceives a man, whether it be wealth, status, desire, or a devil.

It has been interpreted as the Devil, for he is the most malicious of deceivers, and as the world, for it is said: "The world deceives, harms, and passes." The root of ghurur (deception) is from "to deceive so-and-so," if one finds his "ghurra"—meaning his heedlessness—and takes from him what he desires. The intent is trickery. The apparent meaning is that "with respect to Allah" is linked to "deceive you," meaning: let him not deceive you by mentioning something of His affairs that would make you bold in His disobedience—Exalted is He.

It is possible it is an oath, but that is far-fetched. Ibn Abi Ishaq, Ibn Abi ‘Ablah, and Ya‘qub read taghurrannakum with the light nun. Samal ibn Harb and Abu Haywah read al-ghurur with a damma on the ghayn, which is a masdar (infinitive noun). The discourse is of the type "his diligence was diligent" (jadda jadduhu). It is possible to interpret it as the Devil by making him the very essence of deception as a form of hyperbole.