Tafsir of Ya seen 36:8

"Indeed, We have placed in their necks"—the plural of ʿunuq (with a damma on the ʿayn and the nun, or two dammas), which is the nape. It is also said to be ʿanīq (like amīr) and ʿunuq (like ṣurad).

"Shackles"—the plural of ghull (with a damma). It is, according to what has been said, that with which the hand is bound to the neck for the purpose of torture and restraint. In al-Baḥr, a ghull is defined as that which surrounds the neck, implying constriction, tightening, torture, and captivity, and it includes the two hands or one hand along with the neck. Al-Rāghib mentions that it is that with which one is shackled, placing the limbs in its center. Its root is from ghalal, meaning the penetration and insertion of something, as in ghalal for water flowing between trees; it is sometimes called ghayl.

It is as if the speech contains an inversion, meaning: "We placed their necks into shackles," just as one says, "I placed the ring in my finger," meaning "I placed my finger in the ring." It is also permissible that it is in the manner of: "I will surely crucify you in (the trunks of) palm trees." The nunation is for magnification and intimidation, meaning: great and terrible shackles. Attributing the act to the pronoun of majesty supports this.

"So they are"—that is, the shackles, as is the apparent meaning—"up to the chins"—the plural of dhagan (with a fatha), the junction of the two jawbones at their lowest point. The definite article (al-) is for reference or as a substitute for the genitive. The prepositional phrase is connected to a specific state (being a predicate for "they"), meaning they are reaching or terminating at their chins. The fa (so) is for consequence (tafrīʿ). It is also said to be merely for succession, based on not interpreting the nunation as being for magnification and intimidation.

His saying, Exalted is He, "And they are muqmaḥūn"—is a result of "So they are up to the chins," so the fa is also consequential. A muqmaḥ is, according to al-Nihāyah, one who raises his head and lowers his gaze. It is as if he intended the passive voice, such that he raises [his head], etc.

Abū ʿUbaydah said: It is said, "The camel qamaḥa—qumūḥan," if it raises its head away from the trough without drinking. The plural is qumāḥ. From this is the saying of Bishr describing a ship while he was affected by sea-sickness: "And we are on its sides, sitting, lowering our gaze like qumāḥ camels." Al-Layth said: It is the raising of the camel’s head when it drinks distasteful water, then it returns. From this, the two months of Kānūn are called Qumāḥ (with a damma or kasra on the qāf), because when camels come to the water, they raise their heads due to its intense cold.

Al-Rāghib said: Qamḥ is raising the head to swallow something made of wheat (qamḥ), when it flows in the ear from the time of ripening until it becomes firm. Then, raising the head in any manner is called qamḥ. "I aqmaḥtu the camel" means I tied its head toward its back. It is said: The muqmaḥ is one whose chin is pulled until it enters his chest, then he raises it. Mujāhid said: The muqmaḥ is the one raising his head, placing his hand over his mouth. Al-Ḥasan said: He is the one staring with his gaze toward his feet. Its outward form requires that there be a bowing of the head, whereas what is known of qamḥ is raising.

The aspect of the consequence is that the hoop of the shackle around the neck of the shackled person is at the meeting of its two ends under the chin, having a ring containing the head of a bar protruding from the hoop toward the chin; so it does not allow him to bow or lower his head, and he remains muqmaḥ (with head raised), especially if the shackle is large. Ibn ʿAṭiyyah said: The shackles are wide, reaching the chins with their edges, thus the qamḥ (raising) occurs. Ibn al-Athīr’s words imply that qamḥ is due to the tightness of the shackle. If it were intended "We placed in each of their necks shackles," the matter of the qamḥ would be even clearer.

Al-Baghawī, al-Ṭabarī, al-Zajjāj, and al-Ṭabrisī said: The pronoun "they" refers to the hands, even if they were not previously mentioned, because their place in the meaning is clear, as a shackle implies both the neck and the hand. For this reason, it is called a "binder" (jāmiʿah). That which is on the neck alone or the hand alone is not called a shackle. Whenever it is mentioned with the neck, the hand is also intended; and whenever it is mentioned with the hand—as in the recitation of Ibn ʿAbbās ("in their hands shackles") and Ibn Masʿūd ("in their right hands shackles")—the neck is also intended. This is a type of conciseness and abbreviation. Similar to this is the poet's saying: "And I do not know, when I traverse a land wanting goodness, which of the two will reach me: the goodness that I seek, or the evil that does not come to me?"—where he mentioned goodness alone and said "which of the two," referring to goodness and evil, and it is known that goodness and evil befall a person.

Al-Zamakhsharī chose what was mentioned before, then said: The evidence for it is His saying, Exalted is He, "And they are muqmaḥūn." Do you not see how He made the iqmāḥ a result of "So they are up to the chins"? If the pronoun were for the hands, the meaning of causation for the iqmāḥ would not be apparent. Moreover, this substitution involves a kind of forced interpretation, and abandoning the apparent, to which the meaning invites itself, in favor of a hidden meaning from which it recoils, is to abandon the manifest truth for confused falsehood.

The author of al-Inṣāf attempted to defend the group, saying: It is possible that the fa in "And they are muqmaḥūn" is for succession, as in the previous one, or for causation; for pressing the hand with the neck necessitates the iqmāḥ because the hand remains holding the shackle under the chin, raising it. And because if the hand were free, it would be a relief for the shackled person, and he might use it to trick his way out of the shackle; thus, it serves as a warning that the path of escape is blocked.

The author of al-Kashf said: The answer is that there is no grandeur in mere succession. Furthermore, what Zamakhsharī mentioned—and we have indicated it previously—is sufficient for the occurrence of the iqmāḥ, so where is the succession? Thus, the answer regarding causation is refuted. His saying, "And because the hand..." etc., does not suffice as an answer without the first two. In any case, the pronoun returning to the shackles is the one most worthy of consideration, and the eloquence of the Noble Book necessitates it, and it barely pays heed to anything else.