As-Sajdah: (3) "Or do they say, 'He has fabricated it'..."

"Or do they say, 'He has fabricated it?'"

This statement of theirs—that it is a fabrication—is a denial of it being from the Lord of the Worlds. Thus, it is more appropriate that the negation of doubt should pertain to what they have denied, namely, its status as being from the Lord of the Worlds, the Exalted in Majesty. It has been said: This implies that the locus of the statement must be a judgment intended for assertion, not a restriction of the judgment by the negation of doubt. There is a critique regarding this. Similarly, His saying, the Sublime: "Nay, it is the Truth from your Lord," serves as a confirmation of what preceded it, and thus shares its status as a testimony.

Regarding the arrangement of the speech, it is said: It is a sound and firm style. The Exalted first established that its revelation is from the Lord of the Worlds and that it is something beyond doubt—meaning that doubt has no access to its being a revelation from Allah, the Most High, for it is the furthest thing from it; because the one who negates and banishes doubt is present with it, inseparable from it, which is the fact that it is a miracle to mankind. Then, the Exalted turned away from that to His saying: "Or do they say, 'He has fabricated it?'" For the "or" (am) is the disjunctive particle, functioning in the sense of "rather" (bal), and the hamza serves to express denial of their statement and astonishment at it, due to the manifest inability of their eloquent speakers to produce the like of even the shortest chapter of it. Thus, it is either the statement of an obstinate, arrogant person, or an ignorant one whose eyes have been blinded.

Then, the Exalted turned from this denial to establishing that "it is the Truth from your Lord." In al-Kashshaf, it is mentioned that al-Zamakhshari clarified the suitability of tanzil al-kitab (the revelation of the Book) being the subject, la rayba fihi (there is no doubt in it) being an interpolated clause, and min rabbi al-'alamin (from the Lord of the Worlds) being the predicate. This is due to the excellence of the placement of the interpolation at that point, followed by the excellent refutation of those who claim it is a fabrication while the refuter and banisher of doubt is present. This is followed by establishing what is intended, without paying attention to the agitation of these arrogant ones, after the eloquent summary in His saying: "Nay, it is the Truth from your Lord." And there is beauty in the selection of the word "Truth" (al-Haqq) and its definition with the definite article of the genus (al-jins).

Close to this view, in my opinion, is considering tanzil as the subject, the sentence la rayba fihi as being in the position of a state (hal) from al-kitab, and min rabbi as the predicate. So ponder this, and do not be heedless. Abu Ubaydah claimed that am is in the sense of the transitional "rather" (bal), and said that this is a shift from one topic to another, but this is baseless.

It is apparent that min rabbika is in the position of a state (hal), meaning: "being from your Lord." It has been said: It is permissible to consider it a second predicate. The attribution of the Lord to "the Worlds" first, and then to the pronoun of the Master of the Addressees (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) second, contains, in addition to the excellence of the transition to establishing his prophethood, the glorification of his status. His status is exalted in that he, upon him be blessings and peace, is the comprehensive servant in whom were gathered those qualities that were dispersed in the world. Its arrival in a style of escalation indicates that the comprehensiveness of his being (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is more perfect than that of the entire world. And well he deserves that, may the blessings and peace of Allah the Exalted be upon him.

"...so that you may warn a people to whom no warner has come before you."

This is an explanation of the purpose of its revelation. It has been said that it is connected to tanzil (the revelation), and it has been said that it is connected to a suppressed element, meaning: "He revealed it so that you may warn, etc." It has also been said that it is connected to what min rabbika is connected to.

Qawman (a people) is the first object of tundhira (you may warn), and the second object is suppressed, meaning: "the punishment." Ma (not) is a negation, as is the apparent sense. The first min is an expletive (a filler particle for emphasis), and nadhir (warner) is the subject of atahum (came to them). It is applied to the Messenger—and this is the famous view—and it also applies to what is general, including the learned person who warns on behalf of the Almighty. It is said that this is what is intended here, as in His saying: "And there is no nation but a warner has passed among them."

It is possible that nadhir here is an infinitive, meaning "the act of warning," and min qablika (before you)—meaning before your warning, or before your time—is connected to atahum. The sentence is in the position of a description for qawman. The people intended are the Quraysh, according to what more than one scholar has maintained.

Al-Kashshaf states: The apparent meaning is that no Messenger was sent to them from among themselves before the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). They were bound by the laws of the Messengers before them, even if they were negligent in investigating them, especially the religion of Ibrahim and Isma'il (peace be upon them), if we say that the calls of Musa and 'Isa (peace be upon them) were not universal—which is the more apparent view. It has already been stated to you that the rule of any prophet's prophethood, other than our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), ceases after his death; thus, no one who comes after him is ever obligated to follow him. The claim of cessation applies except for those who were his descendants. The apparent meaning is that the Quraysh were bound by the creed of Ibrahim and Isma'il (peace be upon them) and that they remained upon that until the worship of idols—which 'Amr al-Khuza'i, may Allah curse him, introduced among them—spread among the Arabs. Thus, none of them remained upon the Hanifiyyah (pure monotheistic) creed except for a few, or rather, fewer than a few. Therefore, they fall under the generality of His saying: "And there is no nation but a warner has passed among them," for it is general to the Messenger and to the learned person who warns. So it is said, though this is problematic when compared with the verse here.

The response to this is that what is intended here is: "No warner from among them has come to them before you." This is hinted at by the text of al-Kashshaf. In the other verse ("...but a warner has passed among them"), it refers to one from among them or from someone else. Or, "warner" in that verse is taken to mean "Messenger," while in this verse it refers to the more general meaning.

Abu Hayyan said in the Tafsir of Surah al-Mala'ikah: "The call to Allah the Exalted did not cease for any nation, either through the direct presence of their prophets or through transmission until the time of the mission of Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). The verses indicating that no warner came to the Quraysh mean that no warner directly contacted them or their immediate ancestors. As for the claim that warning ceased, it is not true; rather, when its traces began to erode, Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was sent."

Regarding what the scholars of theology mention about the state of those in the Fatrah (interim period), that is according to a hypothetical premise, not a reality. There is no nation on the face of the earth that has not known, and the heart finds some concern with that. Its implication is that what is negated here is the coming of a direct warner—i.e., a prophet from among the prophets (peace be upon them)—to the Quraysh who were in his (peace and blessings be upon him) era before him. There were indeed those among them who warned them and called them to the worship of Allah alone by way of transmission—i.e., from a prophet who used to call to that. The first is something about which no two people should differ, or rather, on which no human should hesitate. The second is suspected to be true regarding Zayd ibn 'Amr ibn Nufayl al-'Adawi, the father of Sa'id, one of the Ten (who were promised Paradise). He was a contemporary of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), met him, and believed in him before his mission (peace and blessings be upon him). He did not live to see the mission, as he died while the Quraysh were rebuilding the Ka'bah, five years before the mission. He was upon the creed of Ibrahim and Isma'il (peace be upon them).

It is authentically narrated from Hisham ibn 'Urwah, from his father, from Asma' bint Abi Bakr, that she said: "I saw Zayd ibn 'Amr ibn Nufayl leaning his back against the Ka'bah, saying: 'O assembly of Quraysh, by Him in whose hand is my soul, none of you is upon the religion of Ibrahim except me.'" In some versions of the report, there is the addition: "He used to say: 'O Allah, if I knew the most beloved of faces to You, I would worship You with it, but I do not know.' Then he would prostrate upon his mount."

Musa ibn 'Uqbah mentioned in al-Maghazi: "I heard from someone who informs me that Zayd ibn 'Amr used to reproach the Quraysh for their slaughtering for other than Allah." It is authentic that he did not eat from the offerings of the polytheists which were dedicated to other than Allah. Al-Tayalisi recorded in his Musnad from his son Sa'id that he said: "I said to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): 'My father was as you saw and as has reached you, so shall I seek forgiveness for him?' He said: 'Yes, for he will be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection as a nation unto himself.'" It is not far-fetched that one of such a state would warn and call to the worship of Allah the Exalted. Rather, one who is fair-minded sees that his words—which Asma' narrated—and his disapproval of the Quraysh slaughtering for other than Allah—which al-Tayalisi mentioned—contain the call to the religion of Ibrahim (peace be upon him) and the worship of Allah alone. Likewise, his speech also contained the aspect of transmission.

From what we have quoted, it is known that the man (may Allah be pleased with him) was not a prophet, and this is apparent. Some claimed he was a prophet, and they used as evidence that he used to lean his back against the Ka'bah and say: "Come to me, for no one remains upon the religion of the Friend (Ibrahim) except me." The authenticity of this is contested, and even if it were granted, it provides no evidence for the intended point, as is not hidden from anyone with the slightest taste. Similar to Zayd (may Allah be pleased with him) was Quss ibn Sa'idah al-Iyadi, for he (may Allah be pleased with him) was a believer in Allah the Mighty and Majestic, calling to the worship of Him alone. He was a contemporary of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and died before the mission upon the Hanifiyyah creed. He was among those with long lives; al-Sijistani mentioned that he lived three hundred and eighty years, and al-Marzubani said that many scholars mentioned he lived six hundred years, and they mentioned many reports regarding him. However, the Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in his book al-Isabah: "Some narrators have isolated the path of Quss, and it includes his poetry and his speech, which is in al-Tiwalah of al-Tabarani and others, and all its paths are weak," and he enumerated those he enumerated, so let it be consulted.

Furthermore, the difficulty is only imagined if "Quraysh" is meant to include all the descendants of Qusayy, or Fihr, or al-Nadr, or Ilyas, or Mudar. As for when it means those who were among them when he (peace and blessings be upon him) was sent, it is not so, as is not hidden from the contemplative. So reflect on this. It has been said: The meaning is the Arabs, Quraysh and others, and no warner from among the prophets (peace be upon them) came to those of them who were contemporaries, other than him (peace and blessings be upon him), while there were among them those who warned and called to monotheism and the worship of Allah alone, and he was not a prophet, as you just heard. As for the Arabs who were not contemporaries, no prophet from among them had come to them since the time of Isma'il (peace be upon him); rather, no prophet was sent to them at all. Musa, 'Isa, and others of the prophets of the Children of Israel (upon them be blessings and peace) were not sent to them, according to the more apparent view. Khalid ibn Sinan al-'Absi, according to the majority, is not a prophet. The report of his daughter—an old woman—coming to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying to her: "Welcome to the daughter of a prophet whose people squandered him," and similar reports, are such that the Huffaz (preservers of hadith) have critiques regarding them, which makes them unsuitable for use as evidence. In the commentaries of al-Shifa' and al-Isabah by the Hafiz Ibn Hajar, there is some discussion regarding this. It has also been said: The meaning is the people of the Fatrah from the Arabs and others, even the People of the Book, and the meaning is: "No warner has come to them before you after the straying that occurred among them."

This is how it is, and I almost see you taking "warner" here as the Messenger who warns on behalf of Allah the Mighty and Majestic, and likewise in His saying: "And there is no nation but a warner has passed among them," so that it matches His saying: "And We have certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], 'Worship Allah.'" I suspect that you treat the tanwin in ummah (nation) as one of glorification—meaning: "There is no illustrious nation whose affair is cared for, but that a warner has passed among them," and "We have sent into every illustrious nation whose affair is cared for, a messenger." Or, you consider the Arabs a nation, the Children of Israel a nation, and so on, each being a nation, rather than the people of one single era. You then interpret those to whom no warner has come as a specific group from a nation to whom no warner came specifically. What supports this is that when the coming of a warner is negated, it is negated regarding "a people" (qawm) and the like, not regarding "a nation" (ummah). So let this be pondered. The full discussion of this station will come, if Allah the Exalted wills.

It is possible that ma is a relative pronoun occurring as a second object to tundhira, and min nadhir is connected to atahum, meaning: "So that you may warn a people [against] the punishment which has come to them from a warner before you"—that is, by the tongue of a warner before you. Abu Hayyan chose this, and according to this, there is no room to imagine the difficulty. But it is not hidden that this is contrary to the immediate understanding which the majority of the commentators follow. Limiting it to "warning" in the statement of the purpose is because it is what their saying: "He has fabricated it" requires, rather than "giving glad tidings."

"...that they may be guided."

Meaning: "In order that they may be guided through your warning to them," or hoping for their guidance. Making "hope" (tarajji) a metaphor for "will," attributed to Him—the Exalted—is a Mu'tazilite straying.