Tafsir of Saba' 34:12

(And to Solomon the wind): Meaning, We subjected the wind to him. It is also said that "to Solomon" is a conjunction linked to "for him" in [the verse] "We made iron soft for him," and "the wind" is a conjunction linked to "the iron." Softening the wind is an expression for subjecting it.

Abu Bakr read "the wind" (al-rīḥu) in the nominative case as an incipient (mubtada’), with "to Solomon" as its predicate. The phrase is based on an omitted genitive noun, meaning: "And for Solomon [was] the subjection of the wind." Many scholars held that it is an incipient, and the prepositional phrase constitutes the predicate—a specific ontological state—and there is no omitted noun, meaning: "And for Solomon the wind was subjected." In my view, under both readings, the sentence is a conjunction linked to His saying, "And We had certainly given David from Us bounty," and so on, joining story to story. Ibn al-Shaykh said: The conjunction on the first reading is linked to "We made iron soft for him," and both sentences are verbal. As for the second reading, the conjunction is linked to a nominal [clause] implied by that verbal sentence, not to the [verbal sentence] itself, due to their incongruity. It is as if it were said: "We have mentioned what We have [given] to David, and to Solomon [is] the wind," for it was to him like property exclusively owned by a master, which he commands as he wishes and travels upon wherever he desires. He then said: It did not say "And with Solomon the wind," because its movement is not the movement of Solomon; rather, it moves by itself, and it moves Solomon and his armies by its movement, and it travels with them wherever he wishes. This is contrary to the turning of the mountains, for that was a follower of David’s—peace be upon him—turning; hence the use of "with" (ma‘ahu) there.

Al-Hasan, Abu Haywah, and Khalid ibn al-Ilyas read "the winds" (al-riyāḥ) in the nominative, as a plural. "Its morning [course] is a month [journey] and its evening [course] is a month [journey]": Meaning its movement in the early morning is a month’s journey, and its movement in the late evening is the same. The sentence is either a new commencement or a circumstantial clause (ḥāl) from "the wind." It is necessary to assume an omitted noun in the predicate because the morning and evening [movements] are not the month itself, but rather occur within it. There is no need to assume [an omission] in the incipient, as Makki did when he said: "Meaning, the travel of its morning is a month’s journey, and the travel of its evening is likewise," for reasons that are obvious.

Ibn al-Hajib said in his Amali: The benefit in repeating the word "month" is to inform [one] of the duration of the morning movement and the duration of the evening movement. Words that come to clarify quantities do not allow for ellipsis—do you not see that you say, "The weight of this is a mithqal, and the weight of that is a mithqal"? Ellipsis is not proper there, just as it is not proper in a specifier (tamyīz). Furthermore, if it were elided, the pronoun would only refer to what preceded it by virtue of its specificity; if it does not possess that specificity, one must revert to the explicit noun. Do you not see that if you honored a man and clothed that specific man, the phrasing would be "I honored a man and clothed him"? But if you honored one man and clothed another, the phrasing would be "I honored a man and clothed a man"? Thus, it becomes clear that this is not a case of placing an explicit noun in the place of a pronoun. This is from the marginalia of al-Tibi—may God have mercy on him. It is not hidden that what he mentioned is based on what is customary. Otherwise, the Almighty has said: "And no long-lived one is granted long life, nor is his life lessened," and He did not limit it to informing of the time of the morning [journey] so that the time of the evening [journey] could be measured by it, because the wind often subsides or its movement weakens in the evening. Therefore, the specification of the evening movement dispelled the illusion of a difference between the two times. Qatadah said: The wind would carry him—peace be upon him—in the morning until midday for a month’s journey, and in the evening, from after midday until sunset, for a month’s journey.

Ahmad narrated in al-Zuhd from al-Hasan that he said regarding the verse: Solomon—peace be upon him—would leave Jerusalem in the morning and take his midday rest in Istakhr, then he would depart from Istakhr and take his evening rest at the fortress of Khorasan.

The history of this wind is mentioned in some ancient poetry. Wahb said—and it is reported from him in al-Bahr—that he found verses carved into a rock in the land of Kaskar belonging to one of Solomon's companions—peace be upon him—and they are: We possess—and there is no power except the power of our Lord— We depart from the homelands, from the land of Tadmur. When we depart, the speed of our evening journey is A month's journey, and the morning [is for] others. People who sold their souls to God in obedience For the victory of the son of David, the purified Prophet. They have merit and elevation in the excellences of religion, And if they trace their lineage one day, it is from the best of tribes. Whenever you ride the obedient wind, it hastens, Starting out; it does not shorten its month. Birds shadow them in rows above them, Whenever they flap their wings above them, they do not scatter. He also mentioned—may God be pleased with him—that his—peace be upon him—base was Tadmur, and that the Jinn had built it for him with marble slabs, columns, and white and yellow alabaster. He said: Al-Nabigha says regarding it: Except Solomon, when God said to him: "Stand in the wilderness and protect it from folly," "And the army of the Jinn, for I have permitted them To build Tadmur with slabs and columns." End quote. What he mentioned regarding Tadmur is what is well-known to the common folk, and al-Tha'alibi mentioned this in his commentary along with the aforementioned verses. However, in al-Qamus, Tadmur is [described as] like the victory of the daughter of Hassan ibn Udhayna, and her city was named after her; this is manifest in its opposition. Perhaps reliance should be placed on what is therein if a reconciliation is not possible, and God the Almighty knows the truth of the situation.

Ibn Abi ‘Ablah read ghudwatahu wa rawḥatahu (his morning trip and his evening trip) with the fa‘lah form, which signifies a single instance of departing in the morning or evening. "And We made the spring of molten copper flow for him": Meaning melted copper, from qatara (it dripped), qatran (dripping) and qutran (with a quiescent or open ta’). It is said [it refers to] metals: copper, iron, and others. The majority of linguists [agree on] the first. By "the spring of copper" is meant the source of copper, but He—glory be to Him—made it flow just as He softened iron for David, so it gushed forth just as water gushes from a spring. Therefore, the "spring of copper" was named after what it became. Al-Jalabi mentioned that attributing the "flowing" to the "spring" is metaphorical, as in the "flowing of the river."

Al-Khafaji said: If "the spring" here means "the flowing water" (al-ma’ al-ma‘īn), and its genitive construction is like "the silver of water," then it is not permissible in terms of attribution; rather, it is from the first type of metaphor, assuming the spring is the source of water. But there is no need for this, so reflect upon it.

Some said: "The copper" is the copper, and "spring" means "its essence" (dhat), and the meaning of "We made flow" is "We melted." The meaning is: We melted copper for him in the same manner as iron would soften for David—peace be upon him—so tasks would be accomplished by him while it was cold, without fire. It had never softened nor melted for anyone before him. The apparent meaning, supported by reports, is that the Almighty made it in its mine a spring that flows like the springs of water.

Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from ‘Ikrimah that he said regarding the verse: God the Almighty made the copper flow for him for three days, flowing as water flows. It was said: To where? He said: I do not know. Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from al-Sudi, who said: A spring of copper was made to flow for him for three days. In al-Bahr, it is from Ibn Abbas, al-Sudi, and Mujahid: They said it was made to flow for him—peace be upon him—for three days and their nights, and it was in the land of Yemen. In a report from Mujahid, the copper flowed from Sana'a. It is also said: It flowed for three days in the month.

"And among the Jinn were those who worked before him": It is possible that the prepositional phrase is linked to an omitted predicate that is fronted, and "from" is in the nominative as an incipient. It is also possible that it is linked to an omitted [adjective] that serves as a fronted circumstantial qualifier for "those who," and [the phrase] is in the accusative case, conjoined to "the wind." It is permitted that "from the Jinn" is a conjunction to "the wind," assuming "from" denotes partiality, and "those who worked" is a substitute for it, though this is strained. "Works" is either treated as an intransitive verb, or its object is implied, clarified by what will come—if God the Almighty wills—so that it is a detail after a summary, which is more impactful on the soul. "By the permission of his Lord": By His—the Mighty and Majestic's—command. "And whoever among them deviated from Our command": Meaning, whoever turned away from what We commanded him regarding the obedience of Solomon—peace be upon him. It is read "yazigh" with a damma on the ya’, from aragha, in the active voice, and its object is omitted, meaning: whoever leans and turns himself or another. It is said it is in the passive voice, thus not needing an implied object. "We would make him taste of the punishment of the Blaze": Meaning, the punishment of the Fire in the Hereafter, as most commentators have said, and this is narrated from Ibn Abbas. Some said: The meaning is his punishment in this world.

It is narrated from al-Sudi that he—peace be upon him—had with him an angel holding a whip of fire; whenever a Jinn defied him, he would strike him from where the Jinn could not see him.

In some reports, it is stated that he would burn whoever disobeyed him. The burning of a Jinn, despite him being created from fire, is not inconceivable, for in our view, he is not pure fire; rather, fire is merely the dominant element within him.