Tafsir of Ad-Dukhan 44:44

(The food of the sinful)—meaning the one who commits many sins. By this, the disbeliever is intended, as indicated by what precedes it and what follows it, rather than a general term covering the disbeliever and the sinner who multiplies his sins. Furthermore, the intent is the category of the disbeliever, not one specific individual. Ibn Zayd and Sa'id ibn Jubayr said: "It refers here to Abu Jahl," but there is no evidence for this, despite what Sa'id ibn Mansur narrated from Abu Malik, that Abu Jahl used to bring dates and butter and say, "Eat this, for this is the Zaqqum that Muhammad (may Allah exalt him and grant him peace) promises you." Thus, ‘Indeed, the tree of Zaqqum is food’ was revealed, for reasons that are not hidden. Similar to this is the claim that it refers to al-Walid.

Abu 'Ubayd narrated in his Fada'il, along with Ibn al-Anbari and Ibn al-Mundhir, from 'Awf ibn 'Abd Allah, that Ibn Mas'ud was teaching a man to recite: "Indeed, the tree of Zaqqum is the food of the sinful" (ta'am al-athim), but the man said: "the food of the orphan" (ta'am al-yatim). He repeated it to him, but the man's tongue could not master it. So he said: "Can you say 'the food of the wicked' (ta'am al-fajir)?" He said: "Yes." He said: "Then do so." Al-Hakim, along with a group, also narrated—and classified as authentic—from Abu al-Darda' that a similar incident occurred to him, and when he saw that the man did not understand, he said: "Indeed, the tree of Zaqqum is the food of the wicked."

This has been used as evidence that substituting one word for another is permissible if it conveys the same meaning. Al-Qadi Abu Bakr rebutted this in al-Intisar, arguing that they intended only to notify the person that they did not mean "the orphan," but "the wicked," and that the person should have recited "the sinful" (al-athim). You know, however, that this interpretation can hardly be applied to what was narrated from Ibn Mas'ud, as it is akin to an explicit text permitting the substitution for that man. Further from this interpretation is what Ibn Marduyah narrated from Ubayy [ibn Ka'b], that he was teaching a Persian man to recite it. When he recited: "Indeed, the tree of Zaqqum is the food of the sinful," he said: "the food of the orphan." The Prophet (may Allah exalt him and grant him peace) passed by him and said: "Tell him: 'the food of the evildoer' (*ta'am al-zallam')," and he said it, and his tongue articulated it clearly.

There are many reports in this chapter with excellent chains of transmission, such as the report of Ahmad from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah: "The Quran was revealed in seven dialects (ahruf)—All-Knowing, Wise, Forgiving, Merciful," and his report from the hadith of Abu Bakrah: "They are all sufficient and satisfying, as long as a verse of punishment is not sealed with mercy, or a verse of mercy with punishment, such as saying: 'Come' (aqbil), 'Hurry' (asri'), or 'Hastened' ('ajjil), and so forth." However, al-Tahawi maintained that this was a concession during a time when it was difficult for many of them to recite in a single dialect due to their lack of knowledge in writing, dictation, and mastery of memorization; then, it was abrogated when the excuse vanished and writing and memorization became easy. Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, al-Baqillani, and others said the same. Perhaps, if a substitution by one of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) is confirmed after the Prophet (may Allah exalt him and grant him peace), it is said that it occurred before they were informed of the abrogation. When it is not permissible to substitute one word for another that conveys its meaning while both are in Arabic, then the lack of permissibility for doing so with a difference in language—Arabic and Persian, for example—is even more obvious. As for what is narrated from Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) that he viewed it permissible to recite the Quran in Persian on the condition of conveying the meanings, the contrary has been authentically established from him. Al-Shurunbulali (may Allah have mercy upon him) has investigated this issue in a separate treatise in a manner that leaves nothing more to be said, and something of this has already been presented in this book, so recall it.

Food (ta'am) is that which is consumed as nourishment, and it is originally an infinitive (masdar), which is why it is used as a predicate for the feminine (referring to the tree), and it does not correspond. It is also permitted that this be in the category of the saying: "The illumination of the intellect is eclipsed by the obedience of passion, while the intellect of the defiant of passion increases in illumination." It is as if it were said: "Indeed, the Zaqqum is the food of the sinful."