Tafsir of As-Saffat 37:8

(لا يسمعون إلى الملأ الأعلى): The origin of this is la yatasamma‘ūn (they do not eavesdrop), then the ta was assimilated into the sin. The plural pronoun refers to every devil, as the term is used in the sense of "devils."

The majority recited it as (la yasma‘ūn) with the lightened mim. The mala’ (assembly) in its origin is a group that gathers for an opinion, filling the eyes with splendor and the souls with majesty and reverence. It is applied to a group in general and to the nobility in particular. The intended meaning of the "Exalted Assembly" is the angels—upon them be peace—as narrated from al-Suddi, for they are in the direction of the heights. Opposite to them is the "Lower Assembly," which is mankind and the jinn, for they are in the direction of the depths.

Ibn Abbas said: They are the noble ones among the angels. In another narration from him, they are the recording angels. In both narrations, "exaltation" is interpreted as spiritual exaltation. The verb in the majority reading is connected by the particle ila (to) because it implies the meaning of "listening attentively" (isgha’); that is, they do not listen attentively to the Exalted Assembly. The intent is to negate their hearing while they are in a state of listening attentively. This indicates a great barrier and a paralyzing terror that distracts them from comprehension.

The same applies to the other reading (the reading of Ibn Abbas, al-Hasan, Ibn Wathab, Abdullah ibn Muslim, Talha, al-A’mash, Hamza, al-Kisa’i, and Hafs), based on the evident rule that the tafa‘‘ul form does not differ from its triliteral root in transitivity. Using tasma‘u with ila does not preclude it from being implicitly suggestive of attentive listening. It is said that there is no need to assume such implication in that reading, as tafa‘‘ul denotes seeking; thus, tatasamma‘ūn means seeking to hear. Others say it implies attentive listening, because seeking to hear is done through attentive listening, thus the two readings harmonize even if one does not claim implicit meaning in the reading with the tashdid (emphasis).

Perhaps it is better to claim the implicit meaning and the negation of their seeking to hear. Their occurrence of such acts—even if it is said they ride upon one another to do so—is either hyperbolic, claiming a state to emphasize the negation of their hearing, or it is as has been said: that it occurs after they reach the place of danger, due to their fear of being pelted, to the point that they are too stunned to seek to hear. Abu Hayyan said: The negation of eavesdropping is for the negation of its result, which is the act of hearing.

Ibn Kamal said: The verb in both readings is connected by ila because it contains the meaning of "reaching"; i.e., they do not reach the Exalted Assembly by hearing or eavesdropping. This is not the case, as is not hidden from the discerning contemplator.

In the famous reading, the sentence is grammatically a musta’nafa (new, initiating) sentence. It is not permissible for it to be a descriptor (sifa) for "devil," for they say there is no meaning in [the decree of] protection from devils who do not hear, as it would imply a lack of protection from those who do hear. Similarly, it is not permissible for it to be an explanatory musta’nafa serving as an answer to an implied question, because the obvious [expectation] is that the question is taken from the context of what precedes it. Its estimation would then be: "Were they not protected?" which returns the same problematic nature of it being a descriptor. The same applies to it being a prospective state (hal), for a state is estimated by its subject, and the devils do not estimate the lack of hearing or eavesdropping, nor do they desire it.

Ibn al-Munir permitted it to be a descriptor, where the meaning is protection of the heavens from those who do not hear, or [from those who] do not hear because of this protection. This is analogous to: “Then We sent Our messengers... and He subjected for you the night and the day and the sun and the moon...” From this, some eminent scholars did not categorize his—upon him be peace—saying, "Whoever kills a combatant, he gets his spoils," as a case of the former. It was countered that this is contrary to what is immediately apparent, and one does not understand from "strike the man who is struck" that he is struck by this specific commanded striking and not by another strike prior to it.

Similarly, the author of al-Kashf permitted it to be a descriptor and also an explanatory musta’nafa, defending against the problematic nature in his characteristic way, saying: The meaning is that they are not enabled to hear with attentive listening, or they are not enabled to eavesdrop, as a hyperbole in negating the hearing; as if, despite their extreme effort in seeking, they are not enabled to do so. This is necessary whether the sentence is made a descriptor or not, to combine the two readings and fulfill the right of "attentive listening" indicated by ila. In that case, the description is perfectly harmonious. The explanatory musta’nafa is valid if the question is "what happens when there is protection?" It is not about "were they not protected?" The question is about what occurs upon protection and its manner, because His saying (The Exalted), “...and as protection against every rebellious devil,” is what stimulates the mind toward this. Thus, it is said: (la yasma‘ūn) as an answer to what happens when it occurs, and (wa yuqdhafūn) for the manner of the protection. This is better than making it the beginning of an extraneous narrative, so that what is not semantically interrupted is not broken.

Al-Khafaji refined this and approved it, stating that the result is that the negation here is not absolute hearing such that what they imagined of the corruption of meaning would follow. For when it is connected with ila and contains the meaning of attentive listening, the meaning becomes: "We have protected it from devils who do not listen intently to what is therein—an attentive listening through which they could grasp what the angels—upon them be peace—say." Its conclusion is: "We have protected it from devils who steal a hearing." His saying (The Exalted), “Except one who snatches a snatching...” testifies to its correctness.

It is said that the origin is li-alla yasma‘ū (so that they do not hear), where the preposition is attached to hifzan (as protection), then the lam was deleted as in ji’tuka an tukrimani (I came to you that you might honor me), then an was deleted and the verb was put in the nominative as in the poet's saying: “O you who rebuke me, shall I attend the war and witness the pleasures? Will you make me immortal?” In this, the deletion of the lam, the deletion of an, and the raising of the verb—though both occur in eloquent speech—the combination of both deletions is rejected, and the speech of God (The Exalted) is protected from it. Abu al-Baqa permits the sentence to be a descriptor, a musta’nafa, or a state (hal), so do not be heedless.

(ويقذفون): That is, they are pelted and stoned. (من كل جانب): From the sides of the sky when they intend to ascend to it. It does not mean that each one is pelted from every side, but rather it is distributive; that is, everyone who ascends from a side is pelted from it. Mahbub recited from Abu ‘Amr (yaqdhifūna) in the active voice. Perhaps the actor is the angels. It is also permitted that they be the stars. The matter of the pronoun referring to rational beings is simple.