Tafsir of Saba' 34:13

Regarding the mihrab, Atiyyah said it is a palace. It is named after its owner because one "wars" (yuharibu) against others in its defense. Mihrab, in its original linguistic form, is an intensive noun denoting one who engages in much war; it is not derived from the name of a tool (i.e., not an instrumental noun), although some have permitted that view. Ibn Hayyus said: "He combined bravery and humility before his Lord; how excellent is the mihrab in his mihrab." It is also applied to the well-known place where an Imam stands, which is a later innovation in mosques and did not exist in the earliest generations, as Al-Suyuti stated, having authored a treatise on the subject. For this reason, the jurists have disliked standing inside it.

Ibn Zayd said: Maharib are dwellings. Others said they are structures accessed by stairs, like rooms. Mujahid said: They are mosques, named as such by way of figurative speech, which is based on the premise that mihrab refers to a chamber in a mosque for the worship of Allah Almighty, or the station of the Imam.

Ibn al-Mundhir and others recorded from Qatadah that he interpreted them as both palaces and mosques. The sentence "They worked for him what he wished" is an isti’naf (resumption/new starting point) to detail the labor previously mentioned; some have permitted it to be a hal (circumstantial accusative), but its status is as you see.

Al-Dahhak said: These were images of animals. Al-Zamakhshari said: They were images of angels, prophets, and righteous people, made in mosques out of brass, copper, glass, and marble, so that people might see them and worship as they worshipped. Making images was permissible in that shari’ah (religious law), as stated by Al-Dahhak and Abu al-Aliyah.

Al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi recorded in Nawadir al-Usul from Ibn Abbas that he said regarding this verse: Solomon, upon him be peace, took statues of brass and said, "O Lord, breathe into them a soul, for they are stronger in service," and Allah Almighty breathed a soul into them, so they served him. Asfandiyar is said to be from their remnants. This is among the most wondrous of wonders, and one should not believe it to be authentic; it is nothing but a fable.

As for what is narrated—that they made for him two lions at the base of his throne and two eagles above it, so that when he wished to ascend, the lions would extend their arms, and when he sat, the eagles would shade him with their wings—this is not far-fetched. This could be achieved through mechanisms that move during ascent or sitting, causing the arms and wings to move. Human craftsmanship has reached such levels of strangeness.

It is said: The statues were talismans. One would make an image of a crocodile, a fly, or a mosquito, and the thing represented would not cross into that place as long as the statue remained there. The practice of such things is famously attributed to the philosophers; it is something that, according to them, is only perfected through certain astronomical alignments. On the gate known as the Talisman Gate in Baghdad, there is a snake statue that they claim prevents snakes from causing harm inside the city. We have witnessed people stung by snakes repeatedly; some were not harmed, others were slightly harmed, and we have never seen anyone die from it, while such stings are rarely survived outside Baghdad. However, we do not believe that the statue has any role in this; we suspect it is due to the weakness of the variety of snakes found in Baghdad and their lack of inherent viciousness.

It is said: The statues were images of trees or animals with their heads removed, which is permissible in our shari’ah. There is no need to commit to this unless a sound transmission is confirmed. The truth is that the prohibition against portraying whole animals did not exist in that shari’ah, but only in ours. To us, there is no difference between a three-dimensional image and a two-dimensional one, such as the image of a horse drawn on paper or a wall, for example.

Makki mentioned in Al-Hidayah that a group permitted portraiture, as did Al-Nahhas and Ibn al-Faras, citing this verse as evidence. You know that there has come in our shari’ah such severe warnings against portrait-makers that this opinion should not be heeded, and it is not valid to use this verse as evidence. It seems the statues were prohibited because, with the passage of time, the ignorant began to use them for worship, assuming they were placed in temples for that purpose; thus, idol worship spread, or it was to close the door entirely to resembling those who take idols.

Jifan is the plural of jafnah, which is what food is placed in generally, as mentioned by more than one scholar. Some linguists said: Jafnah is the largest of the bowls (qisa), followed by the qas'ah (which satisfies ten people), then the sahfah (which satisfies five), then the ma'kalah (which satisfies two or three), and then the sahifah (which satisfies one). Thus, the meaning here is the absolute bowl, based on the apparent wording of the verse.

Al-jawab are like great pools (hiyad). It is the plural of jabiyah, derived from jibayah (collection), meaning they are gathered. It is originally a metaphor for the container or the receptacle. It became the dominant term for a specific vessel, just as the term dabbah (creature) became dominant for four-legged animals. The comparison of the jafnah to the jabiyah appears in their speech, such as the saying of Al-A'sha: "He repelled disgrace from the family of Al-Muhallaq, with a jafnah like the jabiyah of the Iraqi plain, brimming over." And the saying of Al-Afwah al-Awdi: "And cauldrons like mountains, stationary, and basins like pools, brim-filled." It is mentioned regarding the vastness of Solomon’s jifan that one thousand men could eat from a single one.

It is recited as al-jawabi (with a ya), which is the original form. Its omission (in other recitations) is due to contentment with the kasra, treating the definite article al- as a substitute for the tanwin. Just as it (the ya) is omitted with the tanwin, it is omitted with its substitute.

Qudur is the plural of qidr (cauldron), which is what is cooked in, whether made of pottery or otherwise; it is of a specific shape. Rasiyat means they are fixed on their trivets (athafi), not moved from them due to their size, as stated by Qatadah. It is also said they were as large as mountains.

The maharib (structures) were mentioned before the statues because images are placed in maharib or carved on their walls. The jifan (basins) were mentioned before the qudur (cauldrons)—even though qudur are for cooking and jifan for eating, and cooking precedes eating—because once the royal buildings were mentioned, it was fitting to point to the grandeur of the banquet spread within them. Thus, the jifan were mentioned first, as they are where the food is held, unlike the qudur, which are not brought there, as indicated by the verse "fixed" (rasiyat) as you heard earlier. It is as if, when the state of the jifan was explained, the mind longed for the state of the qudur, so they were mentioned for the sake of suitability.

This is by estimating a command (an isti’naf) or as a hal (circumstantial) from the subject of "We subjected" (sakharna). Aal (family) is a vocative from which the particle of calling is omitted. Shukran (gratitude) is in the accusative as a maf'ul lahu (an object for the sake of which an action is done). This points to the fact that work ought to be done out of gratitude, not out of hope or fear. Alternatively, it is a maf'ul mutlaq (absolute object) for "work," as gratitude is a type of action. It is said it is because "work" implies "thank," or that there is an omitted "thank," or it is a hal interpreted as an active participle, meaning "Work while being grateful," because gratitude encompasses the heart and the limbs.

Ibn Abbas said: It is he who is grateful in all his states. In Al-Kashshaf: It is the one who is fully dedicated to performing gratitude, exhausting his efforts in it, having occupied his heart, tongue, and limbs with it—in confession, belief, and struggle—for most of his time. Al-Suddi said: It is one who is grateful for the gratitude itself. Others said: It is one who sees his inability to be grateful, because his being granted the ability to be grateful is a grace that requires further gratitude, unto infinity. One of them versified this:

If my gratitude for Allah’s grace is a grace, Then the like of it requires gratitude. How then can gratitude be attained except by His bounty, Even if days grow long and life expands? If touched by grace, its joy spreads, And if touched by hardship, it is followed by reward.

You heard earlier what was narrated regarding David, upon him be peace. This sentence may be included in the address to the family of David, which is the apparent meaning, or it may be an independent sentence brought as an announcement to our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, containing a reminder and an incitement to gratitude.

Hamzah read ‘ibadi (My servants) with a quiescent ya, while the others read it with a fatha.