{When We decreed death for him...}

(When We decreed death for him) It is said: We brought death upon Sulayman, ordaining it for him. In Majma‘ al-Bayan, it means: We judged death upon him. Others say: We made it obligatory for him. In al-Bahr, it means: We executed upon him that which We had decreed for him in eternity regarding death, and brought it into the realm of existence; however, there is affectation in this. Regardless, the "decree" (qada') here is not synonymous with "predestination" (qadar); so contemplate this.

"When" (lamma) is conditional; its condition and response are in the words of the Exalted: (Nothing showed them his death except a creature of the earth). It is inferred from this that the creature is a wood-borer, though this is open to scrutiny. The pronoun in (showed them) refers to the Jinn who used to work for him (peace be upon him). It is also said that it refers to the house of Sulayman, but the words of the Exalted later on, (the Jinn became clear), make this apparent interpretation unlikely.

The "creature of the earth" (dabbat al-ard) refers to the ardah (termite)—with various vowel patterns—which is a small creature that eats wood and the like. It is called sirfah. In Hayat al-Hayawan, it is reported from Ibn al-Sikkit that it is a small creature with a black head and a red body that constructs a square house for itself out of fine twigs, sticking them together with its saliva, then enters and dies inside. The proverb says: "More ingenious than a sirfah." In al-Bahr, it is called "the wood weevil" (susat al-khashab). "Earth" (ard), according to Abu Hatim and a group, is a verbal noun from ardat al-dabbatu al-khashaba (the creature ate the wood)—following the paradigm of daraba yadribu. Thus, attributing "creature" to it is an attribution of a thing to its action. This is supported by the reading of Ibn Abbas and al-Abbas ibn al-Fadl: al-ard with a fatha on the ra', because it is the verbal noun of arada (of the ‘alima pattern), which is the intransitive form of the transitive arada (of the daraba pattern). It is said: aradtu al-khashaba (active) and arada al-khashabu (passive). Just as one says: akalati al-qawadihu al-asnana aklan (the pests ate the teeth, an eating), so al-ard with a sukun is the act of eating, and al-ard with a fatha is the being affected by that action.

It is possible to interpret the first as the "being affected," which is the result, so that the two readings align. It is also said that al-ard with a fatha is the plural of ardah, and the attribution of "creature" is that of the general to the specific. Others say al-ard with a sukun is the well-known earth, and "creature" is attributed to it because it acts mostly within the earth, or because it affects wood just as the earth affects it if it were buried. Others say otherwise. The most appropriate is the first interpretation, even if "earth" does not appear in the Quran with that meaning elsewhere.

His saying (eating his staff) is in the position of a state (hal) for the "creature," meaning: eating his staff. The mins'ah is a staff, derived from nasa'tu al-ba'ir (I drove the camel), because it is used to drive; or from nasa'tu (I delayed), from which al-nasi' (postponement) is derived. It appears from this that it is the large staff that a shepherd and his likes carry.

Nafi', Ibn Amir, and a group read minsatihi with an alif, the origin being mins'atihi, where the hamza was changed into an alif, a non-standard substitution. Abu ‘Amr said: "I do not pronounce the hamza because I do not know its derivation. If it is a word that does not take a hamza, I have acted with caution; and if it is one that does, it is permissible for me to omit it." Perhaps this explains the choice of the reading without hamza. With the hamza, it appeared in the poet’s saying: "I struck his face with a mins'ah (staff), so by that he became debased and humiliated." Without it, in the saying: "If you walk with a mins'ah due to old age, then amusement and flirting have turned away from you."

Ibn Dhakwan, Bakkar, al-Walid ibn Abi ‘Utbah, Ibn Muslim, and others read mins'atihi with a quiescent hamza. This is a case of vocalizing a mobile letter for the sake of lightness, though it is not a standard rule. Grammarians deemed this reading weak because it necessitates that the letter before the feminine ta' be quiescent, other than an alif. It is said its standard form is the "lightening between-between" (the hamza), but the narrator did not record it accurately. Harun ibn Musa al-Akhfash al-Dimashqi cited the following as evidence for the sukun in this reading: "A drunkard fallen, who arose from his wa'atihi (footsteps/seat), like the rising of an old man to his mins'atihi (staff)."

It has also been read with a fatha on the mim and the lightening of the hamza through change and omission. Also minsa'atuhu with prolongation, following the pattern of maf'alah, just as one says mi'dah (vessel for ablution), and it may be called mi'da'ah. It was also read manasi'atihi (with a ya'). A group, among them ‘Amr ibn Thabit from Ibn Jubayr, read min as a separate preposition and satihi (the tip of the staff). Its origin is the curve at the tips of a bow, and it is also called siyah. It was used metaphorically here, either as a conventional metaphor—because it was green and became bent from leaning on it, as you will hear in the story—or linguistically, by using the restricted for the absolute. By what was mentioned, the rejection of what al-Battalyusi said—after reporting this reading from al-Farra'—is known; he claimed it was an error not permissible to use in the Book of Allah, and that it has no basis in narration or audition. Furthermore, it does not accord with the story of Sulayman (peace be upon him), as he was not leaning on a bow, but rather on a staff. It was also read akalati mins'atuhu in the past tense; the sentence is either a state (hal)—with the estimation of qad (already) or without—or an expository resumption.

(When he fell) i.e., dropped, (the Jinn became clear) i.e., they knew, after the ambiguity regarding Sulayman’s life and death for them, (that if they had known the unseen, they would not have remained in the humiliating torment). That is: if they had known the unseen as they claim, they would have known of his death when it occurred, and they would not have remained after him for a year in the arduous labors until he fell. The Jinn who learned this were the weak among them, and those from whom knowledge of the unseen was denied were their leaders and elders, according to what is reported from Qatada. It is permitted that "the ambiguous matter" refers to the matter of knowledge of the unseen, or that "the Jinn" refers to the species as a whole, attributing to all what belonged to some, or that it refers to their elders who claimed knowledge of the unseen—meaning: those who claimed knowledge of the unseen among them realized their own incapacity and that they do not know the unseen. Even if they were aware of their status before that, the intent was to mock them, just as one says to a claimant of falsehood when their argument is refuted: "Has it become clear to you that you are a claimant of falsehood?" while you know they have always been so.

It is possible that "became clear" (tabayyanat) means "it became manifest and appeared" (bana wa zahara), so it is intransitive. In this case, the object of the verb (that if they had known...) is a substitute (badal) of inclusion for "the Jinn," like saying: "Zayd became clear, his ignorance," where the manifestation is in truth attributed to it. Meaning: when he fell, it became manifest to the people that if the Jinn had known the unseen, they would not have remained in the torment. In this construction, there is no need to assume a deleted noun as the subject of tabayyanat; rather, after its deletion, the genitive took its place, the verb was attributed to it, and then the clause "(that) if they had known..." was made its substitute.

Others considered his saying: "(that) if they had known..." to be a syllogism with a suppressed major premise, as if it were said: "If they had known the unseen, they would not have remained in the humiliating torment, but they did remain in the humiliating torment, therefore they do not know the unseen." The usage of tabayyana to mean "became manifest" (intransitive) and "realized/knew" (transitive) exists in the speech of the Arabs. The poet says: "It became clear to me that humbleness is a humiliation, and that the noble men are those who possess it." Another said: "O Fatimah, I am a dead man, so realize this and do not panic; all creatures die." In al-Bahr, reporting from Ibn ‘Atiyyah, he said: "Sibawayh held that anna (that) has no place in the syntax; rather, it is in the position of an oath from a verb that signifies verification and certainty, because these verbs—like 'verified,' 'became certain,' and 'knew'—occupy the place of an oath. So, 'they would not have remained' is the response to the oath, not the response to 'if.'" Contemplate this, for I can hardly grasp it as a sound position.

In the Amali of al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salam, it is stated that "the Jinn" is not the subject of tabayyanat; rather, it is a subject (mubtada') and "(that) if they had known..." is its predicate. The sentence explains the pronoun of the state in tabayyanat. Were it not for this, the meaning would be: "When Sulayman died and fell, it became clear to them that they do not know the unseen," and their knowledge of their lack of knowledge of the unseen does not depend on this. Rather, the meaning is: "The story became clear—what it is." And the story is the saying of the Exalted: (The Jinn, if they had known the unseen...). It is astonishing that such a thing should come from such a person. What he made an impediment to the Jinn being the subject is refuted by what you have heard in the interpretation of the verse, as is not hidden. In the book of al-Nahhas, there is an indication that it was read tabayyanat al-jinnu in the accusative, meaning tabayyanat is "to know," the subject is the hidden pronoun of the mankind, and "the Jinn" is the object. Ibn Abbas, as reported by Ibn Khalawayh, read it as passive. Ubayy read it as tabayyanat al-insu. From al-Dahhak: tabayanat al-insu (mankind became acquainted and learned of each other).

In the story, there are reports: It was the custom of Sulayman (peace be upon him) to seclude himself in the mosque of Bayt al-Maqdis for long periods. When his end approached, he would not wake up without seeing a tree grown in his prayer niche; God would make it speak, and he would ask, "For what are you?" It would say, "For such and such." One day, he saw a carob tree and asked it, and it said, "I have grown for the ruin of this mosque." He said, "Allah would not destroy it while I am alive. Are you the one upon whom my death and the ruin of Bayt al-Maqdis depends?" He pulled it out, planted it in a wall of his, and made a staff from it. He said, "O Allah, hide my death from the Jinn so that they may know they do not know the unseen, just as they pretend." He told the Angel of Death: "When you are ordered to take me, inform me." He said: "I have been ordered to take you, and there remains only an hour of your life." He called the Jinn, and they built a pavilion of glass for him with no door. He stood praying, leaning on his staff, and his soul was taken while he was leaning on it. The Jinn used to gather around his niche wherever he prayed, and no Jinn would look at him in his prayer but that he would burn. A Jinn passed by and did not hear his voice; he returned and did not hear it, so he looked and saw Sulayman had fallen dead. They opened it and found the staff had been eaten by the ardah (termite). They wanted to know the time of his death, so they placed the termite on the staff, and it ate a certain amount in a day and night. They calculated accordingly and found he had been dead for a year. They had been working before him, thinking he was alive. Thus, it became clear that if they had known the unseen, they would not have remained in the torment for a year. It is clear this is a matter of estimation and limitation to the minimum; it is possible the termite began eating much later after his death, and that it ate sometimes and stopped at others.

That it began during his lifetime is far-fetched. That it was by revelation to a prophet in that time is weak, for if it were so, they would not have needed to place the termite on the staff to know the duration. It is reported that Dawud (peace be upon him) established the construction of Bayt al-Maqdis on the site of Musa’s tent and died before completing it, entrusting it to Sulayman. He commanded the Jinn to complete it. When one year remained of his life, he asked that his death be hidden from them until they finished, and to invalidate their claim to knowledge of the unseen. This, on its face, contradicts what is reported—that Ibrahim (peace be upon him) was the one who founded Bayt al-Maqdis, forty years after the Ka'ba, then it was ruined and Dawud restored it and died before finishing it. Also, Musa (peace be upon him) did not enter Bayt al-Maqdis; he died in the wilderness. It is mentioned in the Sahih hadith that at his death, he asked his Lord to bring him near the Holy Land to the distance of a stone's throw. Also, it is reported that Sulayman finished building the mosque, worshipped in it, and prepared for Hajj afterwards as thanks to Allah.

The response to the first is that the intent is "renewing the foundation." To the second, that the "tent of Musa" refers to the tent he inherited, which they used to set up and pray in for blessing, not that it was set up there in his time. This requires a transmission, for such things are not said by opinion. To the third, that the intent is "the gathering of worship according to the religion of Musa," as it occurred in the hadith: "a tent of faith." Al-Qurtubi said in al-Tadhkirah: The intent is a group separated from others, gathered in a likeness of a tent. Regarding the third, that "finishing" means "near to finishing," and that which is near a thing takes its ruling—though there is distance in this. It was chosen that this is one report and that is another, and Allah knows the truth.

It is reported that he commanded the building of a pavilion for himself, and when they built it, he entered it, seeking seclusion to have one day of peace in his life. A young man entered, and he said, "How did you enter upon me without permission?" He said, "I entered by permission." He asked, "And who gave you permission?" He said, "The Lord of this pavilion." He knew it was the Angel of Death coming to take his soul. He said, "Glory to Allah, this is the day I sought peace!" He said, "You sought that which was not created." He stood firm, leaning on his staff, and his soul was taken. His death was hidden from the Jinn until he fell.

It is also reported that Afridun came to ascend his throne, and when he drew near, the two lions struck his leg and broke it; no one dared approach it after him, and that is why the Jinn did not approach it, and his death remained hidden from them. This is scrutinized by the fact that Sulayman was long after Musa, and Afridun was before him, because Manuchehr was of the descendants of Afridun, and Musa appeared in his time. On all reports indicating his death, his falling occurred when the staff broke due to its weakness from the termite eating it; the attribution of the significance in the verse to it is an attribution to a remote cause.

Strange is what is reported from Ibn Abbas that he died in his place of worship on his bed, having locked the door upon himself, and the termite ate the mins'ah (threshold of the door). When it fell, they knew of his death. This places the pronoun of "fell" on the door, and some have followed this. But it is not customary to call the threshold a mins'ah. Also, it would have required karrat (feminine). The appearance is that this report from the "Scholar of the Ummah" is not authentic.

Al-Baghawi narrated from him that the Jinn thanked the termite, so they bring it water and mud inside the wood. This is something I do not say, nor do I believe the report is authentic. He was fifty-three years old, reigned after his father at age thirteen, and began building Bayt al-Maqdis four years into his reign. Then he passed away. Glory be to Him whose kingdom does not end and whose sovereignty does not cease. In the verse is proof that the unseen is not restricted to future matters, but includes witnessed matters that are hidden from the person.