Do you call upon Ba‘l?

(Meaning: Do you worship him, or do you seek your needs from him?)

It is the name of an idol belonging to them, as Al-Dahhak, Al-Hasan, and Ibn Zayd have said. In some versions of the Qamus, it is stated that it belonged to the people of Yunus, and there is no obstacle to it belonging to both, or that such a statement is a distortion. It is said that it was made of gold, twenty cubits in height, and had four faces. They were seduced by it and exalted it to the extent that they appointed four hundred temple servants for it, designating them as its prophets. The Devil would enter its hollow interior and speak the law of error, which the servants would memorize and teach to the people.

It is also said that it is the name of a woman who came to them with error, and they followed her. Support for this is found in the recitation of some: (Ba‘la’), with the madd (elongation), patterned like hamra’. The appearance of its declension (being diptote) suggests it is Arabic, according to those who hold that view, so do not neglect this.

‘Ikrimah and Qatadah said: Al-Ba‘l is "the lord" in the language of Yemen. In another narration from Qatadah: in the language of the Azd Shanu’ah. Ibn ‘Abbas once bargained for a she-camel belonging to a man from Himyar and said to him, "Are you its owner?" He replied, "Its ba‘l." Ibn ‘Abbas then said, "Do you call upon Ba‘l? Do you call upon a lord?" "From whom are you?" the man asked. He replied, "From Himyar." The intent here is: Do you call upon some of the bu‘ul—that is, lords? The meaning here refers to idols or false objects of worship. Thus, the use of the indefinite is for partitivity, which returns to what was said previously.

And forsake the Best of Creators?

(Meaning: And do you abandon His worship—Exalted is He—or the seeking of all your needs from Him—Mighty and Majestic is He—assuming the speech contains the omission of a genitive).

It is said that their "forsaking" of Him—Glory be to Him—means their abandoning of the worship of the Almighty. The "Creator" is intended in the sense of the one to whom this name is applied; it has multiple instances, even if the aspect of the application differs. Therefore, there is no issue in adding the superlative (af‘al) to what follows it.

Here, a famous question arises: What is the reason for moving away from tad‘una (do you call—with a fathah on the ta and dal, as the imperfect of wada‘a meaning "to leave") to tadharuna (you forsake), despite the suitability and homogeneity it would have had with the tad‘una that preceded it? Several answers have been provided:

1. That in doing so, there is a type of affectation (takalluf), and affected paronomasia (jinās) is not considered praiseworthy by rhetoricians. They do not praise what does not come naturally, by way of necessity; hence, they condemned the one who affects it. It was said of it: "The nature of the paronomasia has a type of coercion; do you not see the composition of the letters?" Al-Khafaji said this, though there is debate regarding whether this line of poetry specifically refers to affected paronomasia.
2. That in tad‘una there is an ambiguity for those who read from the mus'haf without memorization—the common folk—as they might read it like the first tad‘una and think the intent is to deny the calling to an action versus calling upon the Best of Creators. This is not a valid point, as it is not the practice of the Book to abandon what the common folk might struggle with, as is not hidden from the elite. Furthermore, the Companions did not consider them [the common folk] in this regard; otherwise, they would not have written the mus'haf without dots or vowel markings, as is known today. The preservation of the Uthmanic script as authoritative until the passing of the Companions supports what we have said.
3. That paronomasia is an ornamentation, and it is only used in a context of contentment and grace, not in a context of anger and intimidation. The rebuttal to this is that it occurs even in places of denial. Allah Almighty says: "And on the Day the Hour is established, the criminals will swear that they had remained [in the world] but an hour." And He says: "Its lightning almost blinds the vision. Allah alternates the night and the day; indeed in that is a lesson for those who have vision." In both, there is perfect paronomasia while the context is one of denial/warning.
4. What is reported from the Imam; when asked why tad‘una was abandoned for tadharuna, he said: "It was abandoned because they took idols as gods and abandoned Allah—the Almighty—after they knew that Allah—Glory be to Him—is their Lord and the Lord of their first forefathers, out of arrogance and denial. Therefore, it was said tadharuna and not tad‘una." The response to this is the statement that da‘a is a command to leave before knowledge, and dhara is a command to leave after it; however, the language and etymology do not support this.
5. That the negation of each of the two verbs—calling upon Ba‘l and forsaking the Best of Creators—is not for the same reason as the negation of the other, so the abandonment of paronomasia signals the intensity of the disparity between the two actions.
6. That there was no homogeneity between the two objects in any way, so paronomasia was abandoned in the two verbs related to them. Even if the homogeneity denied between the two objects is one thing, and the homogeneity we are discussing between the two verbs is another. Both answers, as you can see, are debatable.
7. That the Arabs only used wada‘a for a "leaving" that the one doing it is not blamed for, because it comes from da‘ah meaning comfort; whereas yadharu is the opposite because it implies belittlement and lack of regard, as it comes from wadhar—a scrap of meat that is insignificant and ignored. This is challenged by the fact that the obvious implication of the phrase "the opposite" is that yadharu is used for a "leaving" that the one doing it is blamed for. This is refuted by His saying: "And leave them to their falsehood," and His saying: "And leave what remains of usury," among others. This requires reflection.
8. That yada‘u is more specific than yadharu, because it means leaving something with concern for it, as evidenced by the etymology, such as ida‘ (depositing); for one leaves a deposit with care for its state, which is why one chooses someone trustworthy to hold it, and likewise muwaada‘ah (making peace/truces). As for yadharu, its meaning is leaving absolutely, or with turning away and total rejection. Al-Raghib said: "It is said that so-and-so yadharu the thing, meaning he casts it aside due to a lack of regard for it," and from this comes wadhar—which is what you heard earlier. There is no doubt that the context only suits this and not the former, for the intent is to make their state of turning away from their Lord appear repulsive. This is close to the previous point but safe from some of its flaws.
9. That in tad‘una (with the fathah) there is a weightiness that is not hidden from anyone with sound taste and a straight nature, while tadharuna is free from it. Thus, it was chosen over the other. So reflect upon this, and Allah Almighty knows best.

Allah—Exalted and Majestic is He—has indicated with His saying "The Best of Creators" the justification for the denial intended by the rebuke, and He made it explicit out of concern for its importance in His saying...