Tafsir of Sad 38:33

The accusative pronoun in His saying, “Bring them back to me,” refers to the Saffinat (the graceful horses standing on three legs), according to more than one commentator. While the surface of their statement implies it refers to the Saffinat mentioned in the verse, you might prefer the view that it refers to the "horses" indicated by the scene or the "good/wealth" (al-khayr) in His saying: “I have loved the love of good...” This is because “Bring them back” is a continuation of his statement—peace be upon him—and the Saffinat are not mentioned in his speech, but rather in the speech of Allah, the Exalted, to our Prophet (peace be upon him).

The speech, according to al-Zamakhshari, implies a verb of saying, meaning: "He said, 'Bring them back to me.'" The sentence is an isti'naf bayani (explicative commencement), as if it were said: "What did Solomon say?" And it was answered: "He said, 'Bring them back.'" Abu Hayyan countered this by stating that there is no need for such an implication, as the sentence is included under the narrative of speech in His saying: “So he said, ‘Indeed I...’” The fa (so) in His saying, “So he began to strike...” is fasiha (eloquent), revealing a deleted sentence, trusting in the context to indicate it, and signaling the extreme speed of compliance with the command, as in His saying: “We said, ‘Strike with your staff the stone,’ and there gushed forth from it twelve springs,” meaning: "So they brought them back to him, and he began..."

Tafiqa (he began) is one of the verbs of inception (af'al al-shuru'), and its subject is the pronoun of Solomon. Mashan (striking) is an absolute object (maf'ul mutlaq) for an implied verb which acts as its predicate, meaning: "He began to strike, striking." It is not an accusative of state (hal) interpreted as mashihan (a striker), as Abu al-Baqa allowed, for tafiqa requires a predicate, and this is not a case where the hal can stand in for the predicate. Zayd ibn Ali read it as masahan (on the pattern of qital).

“...upon their shanks and necks” (i.e., upon their shanks and their necks). The definite article (al) acts in place of the possessive pronoun. The ba (in bis-suq) is connected to the striking, meaning he began to strike the shanks and necks with the sword. It is said that jam' (the plural) is redundant; meaning he began to strike their shanks and necks with the sword. As al-Raghib said, "I struck him with the sword" is a metonymy for killing. In the Kashshaf, "he strikes the sword upon their shanks and necks" means he cuts them. You say "he struck his 'alawa (neck)" if he struck his neck, and "he struck the book's musfar" if he cut its edges with his sword. From al-Hasan: "He cut their hocks ('araqib) and struck their necks." He intended by kasf (cutting) the act of severing.

Some reports have indicated that the intent was to slaughter them. Al-Tabarani recorded in al-Awsat, and al-Isma'ili in his Mu'jam, and Ibn Marduyah, with a hasan chain from Ubayy ibn Ka'b from the Prophet (peace be upon him), that he said regarding this verse: "He cut their shanks and necks with the sword." He—peace be upon him—thereby made them a sacrifice to Allah, the Exalted, and the sacrifice of horses was a legitimate act in his religious law. Perhaps the cutting of the hocks was to make their slaughter easier.

It is also said that he branded them in the cause of Allah, and that the "striking" issued by him was their branding, so that it would be known they were horses confined for the cause of Allah. This is similar to what is done today with branding by fire; there is no harm in it in our law, provided it is not on the face. Perhaps he—peace be upon him—saw branding with the sword as lighter than branding with fire and thus chose it, or it was the known practice in those eras among them. It is narrated that when he did this, the wind was subjected to him as an honor for him.

Others say that he intended thereby to destroy them, as they had occupied him from the worship of his Lord, and his heart's attachment to them became a cause for his negligence. Al-Shibli—may his secret be sanctified—inferred from this the permissibility of burning one's clothes with fire when they distract one from the Lord. This is a false statement that should not be heeded. Far be it from a Prophet of Allah to destroy lawful property merely because he was distracted by it from worship, while he had other ways to remove them from his ownership in a way that would be a gain, and closer to Him, the Exalted. Moreover, he—peace be upon him—did not acquire or parade those horses out of vanity or arrogance; God forbid! He acquired them to benefit from them in the obedience of Allah, and he paraded them to examine their conditions so he could fix what needed fixing. All of this is worship. At most, it implies that he—peace be upon him—forgot one act of worship due to being occupied with another.

Regarding the view that the pronoun “Bring them back” refers to the sun, the address would be to the angels entrusted with it. They say he asked for its return because he missed the Afternoon Prayer ('asr) due to his preoccupation with the horses, so it was returned to him until he prayed. This is narrated from Ali—may Allah ennoble his face. Al-Razi countered this by saying that the One capable of moving the spheres and stars is Allah, so it should have been "Return it to me," not "Return them" (rudduha) with the plural pronoun. If they say it is for glorification, as in “My Lord, return me” (in plural form), we say the expression rudduha implies the greatest form of insult, so how can such an expression befit the observance of glorification? Furthermore, if the sun had returned after setting, it would have been witnessed by everyone in the world, and if that were the case, the causes for recording it would have been overwhelming, yet no one recorded it, which proves its falsity.

The one who argues for the return of the sun for Solomon says it is like its return for Joshua, or for our Prophet (peace be upon him) in the story of the trade caravan, or the day of the Trench. As for the claim that this happened for Ali—may Allah ennoble his face—it is narrated by Asma bint Umays that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was receiving revelation while his head was in Ali’s lap, and he did not pray the 'asr until the sun had set. The Prophet asked, "Have you prayed, Ali?" and he said, "No." So the Prophet said, "O Allah, he was in the obedience of You and Your Messenger, so return the sun for him." Asma said, "I saw it set, then I saw it rise after it had set and touch the earth." This occurred at al-Sahba in Khaybar. There is a dispute regarding the authenticity of this report; Ibn al-Jawzi mentioned it in al-Mawdu'at (The Fabricated Narrations) and said it is undoubtedly a fabrication.

In sum, the view that the sun was returned for Solomon is not accepted. My not saying so is not because the return of the sun is impossible in itself, as the philosophers claim, but because it is not proven to me. A sound taste does not incline the verse to that interpretation, for the reasons mentioned by al-Razi and others—specifically the juxtaposition of the request for return with His saying “Then he began...”

The claim that if mash (wiping/striking) meant cutting, then “wiping your heads” would mean cutting them, is flawed. It only follows if we say that "wiping" wherever it is mentioned means cutting, which we do not say. We only say that "wiping" in this specific verse means cutting, and this has been stated by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), as it came in a hasan report from al-Tabarani, al-Isma'ili, and Ibn Marduyah. After the statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him), there is no room for a speaker to add anything.